The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
MAJOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS MANAGEMENT RIGHTS and UNION-M ANAGEM ENT COOPERATION Bulletin N o. 1425-5 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR W. Willard Wirtz, Secretary BUREA U OF LABOR S T A T IS T IC S A rthur M. Ross, C omm issio ner M A JO R CO LLECTIVE B A R G A IN IN G AGREEM EN TS MANAGEMENT RIGHTS and UNION-MANAGEMENT COOPERATION Bulletin No. 1425-5 April 1966 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR W. Willard Wirtz, Secretary BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS Arthur M. Ross, Commissioner For sale by tbe Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 20402 - Price 60 cents Preface This is the fifth in a comprehensive series of studies through which the Bureau hopes to survey the entire scope of the collective bargaining agreement. Previous publications are listed on the last page of this bulletin. Studies of two collective bargaining issues are combined in this bulletin— management rights provisions, and union-management cooperation provisions. Both deal with the exercise of essentially managerial functions, but with markedly dif ferent principles. In management rights clauses, management in effect stakes out certain functions necessary in the operation of the plant or business as exclusively its own. The union, in turn, accepts this designation of management prerogatives. In provisions calling for union-management cooperation in carrying through an action or policy that normally originates with management and is designed to in crease the efficiency or profitability of the undertaking, the parties in effect indi cate a willingness to share a managerial function or at least recognize mutual interest in efficient, competitive operations. Since all managements exercise certain prerogatives, whether or not they have a management rights clause in their union agreement, and since some degree of union-management cooperation is a necessary ingredient in all collective bar gaining relationships, the provisions discussed in this bulletin, although accounting for all major agreements, do not by any means encompass all areas of labormanagement relations of this type. The series of studies of which this bulletin is a part might come close to doing so in its entirety, insofar as written pro visions are concerned, but important aspects are too elusive to be covered by an analysis of agreement language, or perhaps by any large-scale survey technique. Many agreements deal explicitly with management rights and unionmanagement cooperation, but many do not. Probably each collective-bargaining situation provides its own answer as to why this difference in approach exists. Many provisions may be written with a view toward their meaning to arbitrators, to the courts, to the National Labor Relations Board, to union officials, to shop supervisors and shop stewards, or to the workers in the bargaining unit, often with a concrete experience as a background. The detailed examination of these provisions in this bulletin may suggest their possible uses. The studies are based on virtually all agreements in the United States covering 1, 000 workers or more in effect in 1963—64 (exclusive of railroad, air line, and government agreements) accounting for almost half of the estimated coverage of all agreements outside of the excluded industries. The studies thus do not reflect practices in small collective bargaining situations. All agreements are part of the file of current agreements maintained by the Bureau for public and government use, in accordance with section Z ll of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947. The clauses quoted in this report, identified in an appendix, are not in tended as model or recommended clauses. The classification and interpretation of clauses, it must be emphasized, reflect Our understanding as outsiders, not necessarily that of the parties who negotiated them. The Bulletin 14Z5 series is part of the program of the Bureau’ s Division of Industrial and Labor Relations, Joseph W. Bloch, Chief. This bulletin was prepared by Leon E. Lunden, assisted by Theessa L. Ellis, Richard F. Groner, vid David L. Witt, under the supervision of Harry P. Cohany, under the genral direction of L. R. Linsenmayer, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Wages d Industrial Relations. iii Contents Page Chapter I. Management rights provisions--------------------------------------------------------Introduction ---------------------------------------------------------------------Scope of study -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Related studies------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Prevalence ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Types of provisions ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------General statements -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Enumerated statements ----------------------------------------------------------------------------Areas of enumeration --------------------------------------------------------------------------- *---Selected enumerated rights --------------------------------------------------------------------------Management of business --------------------------------------------------------------------------Direction of work force ----------------------------------------------------------------------------Control of production -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Subcontracting--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Number and location of plants ------------------------------------------------------------------Residual rights ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Limitations------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Revisions of management rights clauses ------------------------------------------------------ 1 1 3 3 5 5 6 7 9 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 19 23 Chapter II. Union-management cooperation ----------------------------------------------------Introduction -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Scope of study -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Related studies ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Prevalence ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Areas of union-management cooperation -----------------------------------------------------Production problems ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Technological change---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Company/industry welfare and sales promotion ------------------------------------Promotion committees and funds in the construction industry-------------Legislation, tariff, and related items ----------------------------------------------------Limits on cooperation ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25 25 26 26 26 27 28 33 37 41 43 44 Enforcement ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 45 Tables: 1. Management rights provisions in major collective bargaining agreements, by industry, 1963—64 -------------------------------------------------------2. Union-management cooperation provisions in major collective bargaining agreements, by industry and form of cooperation, 1963-64 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 38 Appendixes: A. Union-management cooperation not covered by the collective bargaining agreements ------------------------------------------------------------------------B. Selected management rights provisions ------------------------------------------------C. Selected union-management cooperation provisions ----------------------------D. Identification of clau ses------------------------------------------------------------------- 48 53 57 61 v 4 Major Collective Bargaining Agreements Management Rights and Union-Management Cooperation Chapter I. Management Rights Provisions Introduction Many collective bargaining agreements include a clause commonly des ignated as a "management rights" or "management prerogative" provision, which sets forth the functions reserved in whole or in part to the employer. While some of these provisions refer briefly to the existence of management rights, more often they specify those areas over which the employer has absolute con trol and those which are limited by substantive provisions of the agreement. The management rights clause, it should be noted, does not define those issues which are bargainable or nonbargainable as a matter of law. Rather, the agree ment provision summarizes the understanding of the parties on particular issues for the term of the agreement, and it may be modified in later negotiations, as the parties see fit. A management rights clause by itself is not an accurate guide as to the areas in which the employer can act unilaterally and those in which his actions are abridged by the terms of the agreement. For this, one must con sider the agreement in its entirety. For example, a management rights clause which states that the employer shall have the "right to promote" may be cir cumscribed by job bidding and seniority provisions and, more significantly, by an arbitration procedure which extends to any and all disputes between the em ployer and the union. The management rights clause is probably of greatest significance in disputes over issues on which the contract is otherwise silent. In such cases, this clause serves as tangible evidence to the arbitrator that the issue was meant to remain the prerogative of the employer. It is also believed to be of educational value for those who are concerned with the daily administration of the contract in the plant. The initiative for a management rights clause naturally comes from the management side of the bargaining table. However, opinions among manage ment negotiators differ as to the desirability of such a clause. In view of the attention directed to management rights in recent years and the growing in volvement of lawyers in collective bargaining, it is significant that 1 out of Z major agreements studied did not contain an explicit statement of management’ s rights. This absence may reflect a strategy on the part of management not to refer to its rights in a separate clause since such a listing, because of its possible incompleteness, may impair any residual rights which are claimed to belong to management exclusively. All rights not specifically abridged by the term of the agreement (or by legislation), so this strategy holds, remain with management, to be exercised at its discretion. Increasing emphasis on safeguarding management rights, either in man agement rights clauses or in tighter drafting of substantive provisions, has been predicted as a result of I960 Supreme Court decisions in the so-called "Steel workers Trilogy. " Of particular interest is the Court’ s decision in the United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior and Gulf Navigation Company c a s e ,1 which 1 363 U .S . 574. 1 2 arose over the arbitrability of a subcontracting dispute. The agreement pro vided for arbitration of disputes as to the meaning and application of the agree ment and nany local trouble of any kind . . . " At the same time, it stated that "matters which are strictly a function of management shall not be subject to arbitration. " The agreement included a "no strike no lockout" provision. for the union, the Court made the following observations: In holding C o lle c tiv e bargaining agreem ents regulate or restrict the exercise o f m anagem ent functions; they do not oust m anagem ent from the perform ance o f them . . . When . . . an absolute no-strike clause is included in the agreem ent, then in a very real sense everything that m anagem ent does is subject to the agreem ent . . . . . . ’ strictly a function of m anagem ent' must be interpreted as referring only to that over w hich the contract gives m anagem ent com p lete control and unfettered discretion. Respondent cla im s that the con tracting-ou t o f work falls within this category. C on tracting-ou t work is the basis o f many grievances; and that type o f cla im is grist in the m ills o f the arbitrators. A s p e cific c o lle c t iv e bargaining agreem ent m ay exclu de con tracting-ou t from the grievan ce procedure or a w ritten c o l lateral agreem ent m ay make clear that con tracting-ou t was not a matter for arbitration. In such a case a grievance based solely on con tracting-ou t would not be arbitrable. Here, however, there is no such provision. Nor is there any showing that the parties designed the phrase 'strictly a fu n c tion o f m anagem ent’ to encompass any and all forms o f con tra ctin g -ou t. In the absence of any express provision exclu din g a particular grievance from arbitration, w e think only the most forcefu l e vid en ce o f a purpose to exclu de the cla im from arbitration can prevail, particularly where, as here, the exclusion clause is vague and the arbitration clause quite broad . . . It is doubtful that the Supreme Court decision and the extensive discus sion of management rights in trade and professional publications during recent years have had much of an immediate impact on agreement provisions. 2 At least one reason, perhaps an obvious one, is that managements are unable to adopt or change policy unilaterally. At any rate, 4 out of 5 clauses checked reflected no change over a number of years. This study shows that during 1963—64 slightly less than half of all major contained a formal management rights provision. Most of these clauses enumerated specific rights belonging to management rather than asserting rights in a general form. Almost all provisions listed rights dealing with the direction of the work force and over three-fifths contained one or more rights concerning the employer’ s control of production. Clauses establishing the em ployer’ s right to determine the size of his work force and to introduce new machinery were especially prevalent. The right to subcontract was asserted infrequently, while the right to determine plant location was listed in slightly more thafi one-fourth of the formal statements. agreements Almost all provisions limited the very rights they set forth, most often by subordinating them to other provisions of the agreement. Slightly more than one-third reserved to management those functions not modified by the contract and not otherwise specifically cited as the employer’s. Since this study deals exclusively with agreements covering 1,000 work ers or m ore, large companies and associations are involved: Hence, a number of interesting questions are left unexplored. For example, are large companies more sensitive than small companies to the possible erosion of management ^ A measure o f the frequency o f the m anagem ent rights issue in negotiations and in arbitration can be derived from the- Annual Report of the Federal M ediation and C on cilia tion Service for Fiscal 1964. A m ong the issues in cases settled by FMCS mediators, m anagem ent prerogatives as such were am ong the low est, slightly less than 4 percent, although this issue has increased since 1960, when it figured in 2 .6 percent of all issues. H ow ever, am ong the issues adjudicated by arbitrators appointed by the service, m anagem ent rights ranked fourth from theFRASER top. T he issue appeared in 320 cases in 1964 as against 307 in 1963. Digitized for 3 functions? Does the availability of legal talent, presumed to be greater in large companies, have the influence' on management rights clauses that one would expect from the writings in this area? Is the practice substantially different for large companies dealing with large unions than for small companies dealing with large unions? In the absence of answers to questions such as these, it is important to remember that practices in small companies may be substantially different from those revealed in this study. Scope of Study This study is concerned with the management rights provision as it appears in the collective bargaining agreement: Its prevalence, its form, the rights retained by management, and the limitations placed upon management action. For this study, the Bureau examined 1,773 major collective bargaining agreements, each covering 1,000 workers or more, or virtually all agreements of this size in the United States, exclusive of those in railroad and airline in dustries, and in Government. These agreements applied to approximately 7. 5 million workers or almost half of the total coverage of collective bargaining agreements outside of the excluded industries. Of these, 4.1 million workers covered by 1,023 contracts were in manufacturing; the remaining 750 agree ments, applying to approximately 3.3 million workers, were in nonmanufactur ing. Virtually all contracts were in effect in 1963-64. Clauses selected for quotation in this report illustrate either the typical form of the characteristics under consideration or the variety of ways in which negotiators have modified that form. Minor editorial changes were made where necessary to enhance clarity, and irrelevant parts were omitted where feasible. For certain selected management rights issues, a sample of 420 agree ments was selected from the 1,773 agreements in the study. In general, within each industry, agreements were arrayed in descending order by size of worker coverage and a 1 in 4 sampling ratio was applied. However, every industry was assured of at least one selection. In addition, 142 agreements, representing a variety of industries and unions, were examined for changes in management rights provisions over a period of about 10 years. The illustrative clauses are numbered and the agree ments from which they have been taken are identified in appendix D. In ap pendix A, several management rights provisions are reproduced in full to illus trate how the parts fit together in the whole. Related Studies In its broadest sense, virtually the entire series of studies referred to in the preface (p. iii) touches upon some aspect or abridgement of manage ment rights, if the period prior to union renegotiation is taken as a starting point. More immediately related to management rights are the reports on grievance procedures and on arbitration procedures.3 The study of unionmanagement cooperation that follows deals with a voluntary sharing of manage ment functions with the union. Studies of plant removal, subcontracting, and interplant hiring and transfer arrangement clauses are also being prepared. Later studies, particularly those dealing with layoff procedures, seniority, advance notice and consultation, and work and shop rules, will add depth to the picture. 3 M ajor C o lle c t iv e Bargaining A greem ents: G rievance Procedures (BLS Bulletin 1425—1, 1964), co m in g Major C o lle ctiv e Bargaining A greem ents: Arbitration Procedures (BLS Bulletin 1425—6). and the forth 4 T a b l e 1. M a n a g e m e n t Rig hts P r o v i s i o n s in M a j o r C o l l e c t i v e B ar ga i n i n g A g r e e m e n t s , by In d us tr y, 196 3—64 ( W o r k e r s in thousands) With f o r m a l m a n a g e m e n t right s p r o v i s i o n s T o ta l studied Ind ustry General statement only Ag r e e W ork ments ers To ta l Agreements W ork.ers Agreem en t s Work ers A l l i n d u s t r i e s ------------------------------- 1,773 7,4 4 7 .0 860 3 ,5 0 1 .5 147 63 2 . 2 713 M an u f ac t u ri n g ----------------------------------- 1,023 4, 1 2 9 . 7 645 2,800.7 117 52 2. 6 528 O rd n a n ce and a c c e s s o r i e s ----------------F o od and kin d re d pr o du c ts ---------------Tobacco, m a n u f a c t u r e s ------------------------T e x t il e m i l l pr o du c ts -------------------------A p p a r e l and other f ini she d pr o du c ts L u m b e r and wood p r o d u c t s , ex c ep t f u r n i t u r e ----------------------------------F u rn i t u re and f i x t u r e s ------------------------P a p e r and al l ie d p r o d u c t s ------------------P r in t i n g , p u b l is h i n g , and al lie d i n d u s t ri e s -----------------------------------------------C h e m i c a l s and al lie d pr o d u c ts -------P e t r o l e u m refi ning and re l a t ed i n d u s t ri e s ---------------------------------------------Rubb er and m i s c e l l a n e o u s p l a s t i c s pr o du c ts ------------------------------------------------L e a t h e r and l e a t h e r p r o d u c ts ----------Sto ne , c l a y , and g l a s s p ro d u c ts ----P r i m a r y m e t a l i n d u s t r ie s ----------------F a b r i c a t e d m e t a l p r o d u c t s ----------------M a c h i n e r y , ex c e p t e l e c t r i c a l ----------E l e c t r i c a l m a c h i n e r y , eq u ip m en t, and su p pl ie s ----------------------------------------T r a n s p o r t a t io n eq u ip m en t ----------------I n s t ru m e n t s and re l at ed pr o d u c ts — M i s c e l l a n e o u s m a nu f ac t ur in g i n d u s t r ie s -----------------------------------------------N on m an uf ac tu ri n g ---------------------------M i n i n g , cru de p e t r o l e u m , and natu ral ga s pro du c tio n ---------------------T r a n s p o r t a t i o n 1 ------------------------------------C o m m u n i c a t i o n s ----------------------------------U ti l i ti es : E l e c t r i c and gas ---------------W h o l e s a l e tr ad e ------------------------------------Re tai l trade ---------------------------------------------H ot el s and r e s t a u r a n t s ----------------------S e r v i c e s ---------------------------------------------------C o n s t ru c ti o n -------------------------------------------M i s c e l l a n e o u s no nm an u fac tu ri ng i n d u s t r i e s ----------------------------------------------- 1 19 124 11 28 52 12 78. 3 37 4. 5 24. 1 79 . 8 427. 8 17 40 3 14 8 1 75 . 9 119 . 5 5. 3 31.4 20. 9 B e c a u s e of rou nding, 16 1 1.0 3 4. 3 4 37 18 54. 8 10 35. 0 5 17. 4 5 24 109 . 1 76 . 7 114. 3 59 9. 3 141.5 26 2 . 7 20 12 9 ■- 58. 2 - 24 97 45 75 66. 2 11 8 6 10 11 12 7 30. 3 14. 7 25. 7 13 89 39 65 121 22 39 6. 5 969. 1 45 . 4 74 105 13 33 9. 3 20 17 4 99.0 148 . 0 5. 2 88 9 17. 7 4 5. 6 1 2. 1 750 3, 3 1 7 . 4 215 700. 8 30 6 185 20 107 81 86 15 116 38 62 221 4 23 8 . 8 688. 4 51 3. 207. 28. 30 3 . 175 . 2 18 . 898. 7 2 4 9 6 6 1 44. 9 14 18 16 72 3 37 10 22 21 2 26. 3 115 . 2 87 . 2 162 . 7 3.9 92 . 1 34. 7 9 8.9 77. 1 1 2 4 2 1 11 2 6 2.9 s u m s of individual i t e m s m a y not equal to t a l s . 1 - 109 . 1.0 26. 5. 2. 1. 25. 6. 35. 5. - 3 4 7 5 4 3 6 5 74 . 10 7. 5. 30. 5. 2 2. 255. 18. 48. 406. 4 0 68. 0 1. 1 3. 5 16. 7 5. 5 7 9.0 921.6 18. 9 1 ,329.0 32 1 1 5 40 98 378 4. 5 74 . 7 15. 4 73. 5 11 2. 7 22 2,2 7 8 . 1 14. 6 9. 3 81 . 1 5 37 61 30 109 57 98 3 , 9 4 5 .6 29 1.0 4. 4 16. 7 46 . 2 4 7 4 7 5 913 3. 4 13. 2 29. 6 1 34 3 13 3 9 27 79. 36. 93 . 5 72 . 107 . 186 . 2,869. 3 2 8 20 - 7 W ork er s 14 44 11. 6 - 19. 0 25.9 12 7. 3 3 Agree ments 9 9 3 4 5 6 15 56 E x c l u d e s r a i l r o a d and a i r l in e i n d u s t r ie s . NOTE: 1.0 No f o r m a l management rights provision With enumerated rights Ag r e e Work ments er s 17. 6 21.2 84 8 9 6 21 8 4 9 33. 7 8 19. 4 8 36. 7 26 . 7 542. 5 92 . 8 16 0. 6 23 29. 8 40. 0 20. 9 26. 6 34. 0 76. 5 9 240. 3 773. 6 13. 7 24 16 9 57. 2 47 . 6 26. 5 3 3. 6 5 12 . 1 591. 3 535 2 , 61 6 . 6 54 13 25. 3 16 12 88. 9 70 2 26 8 16 20 2 81.9 160. 1 2. 4 66.7 28. 4 63. 3 71. 6 2.9 10 6 12 12 6 200 21 2 . 5 57 3. 2 426. 5 44 . 5 24. 5 2 11.9 14 0. 9 119 . 7 821.0 2 42 . 0 89 65 14 12 79 28 40 5 Prevalence Of the 1,77 3 major agreements studied, slightly less than half (860) contained a formal statement of management rights (table 1). These agree ments affected 3. 5 million of the 7. 5 million workers under all major agree ments, or 47 percent. Manufacturing industries, where nearly 3 of 5 agreements included a formal statement, accounted for three-fourths of all the agreements. Con tributing significantly to this concentration were contracts in the primary metals, machinery and electrical machinery, and transportation equipment industries. Except for utilities, nonmanufacturing industries had a significantly lower pro portion of agreements with rights clauses (3 out of 10). Single employer units accounted for the bulk (90 percent) of all manage ments rights provisions. Type of em ployer bargaining unit ______ T otal studied________ Workers Agreem ents (in thousands) T ota l with form al ______ m anagem ent rights Agreem ents Workers (in thousands) T o t a l ------------------------------- 1,773 7 ,4 4 7 .0 860 3 ,5 0 1 .5 Single e m p l o y e r -------------M u ltie m p lo y e r ------------------ 1,098 675 4 ,2 2 9 . 1 3 ,2 1 7 .9 769 91 3 ,1 2 4 .8 3 7 6 .7 NOTE: Because o f rounding, sums o f individual items m ay not equal totals. Less than 15 percent of the agreements negotiated by multiemployer units included such provisions as against 70 percent for employers bargaining on their own. Multi employer units, as used in this study, include (1) groups of employers, typically small employers, who have combined to form an asso ciation for bargaining purposes and (2) companies signatory to so-called "fo rm " agreements. In multiemployer bargaining situations, the employers' association itself seeks to protect "management rights" for its m em bers, and precedent and a rule of reason may serve this end better than formal agreement provi sions, as they often do on other issues. Moreover, disputes that arise between individual companies and the union are often processed through the grievance machinery as a management grievance and are ultimately resolved by the joint arbitration machinery in which the company is represented by the association. 4 Types of Provisions Once the basic decision is reached to include a statement of rights in the agreement, a further determination has to be made concerning the form that the statement would take, i. e. , whether it will consist only of a broad and general definition of rights (general statement) or contain an enumerated list of specific functions reserved to the employer (enumerated statement). Each form has its advocates. Those preferring the general statement argue that by enumerating rights important functions may be overlooked inad vertently. Should an issue involving an overlooked right subsequently reach arbitration, the arbitrator could reason that the absence of this right expressed 4 See Bulletin 1425—1, op. cit. 6 the parties' intent; therefore, the function could no longer be exercised by man agement unilaterally. On the other hand, supporters of enumerated statements have held that specific provisions clearly define the rights of management and thereby offer better protection against their erosion. Furthermore, by furnish ing a definite guide to arbitrators, many such clauses, it is claimed, help to resolve disputes that may arise as to the interpretation or application of agree ment terms. The latter argument seems to be the more compelling one, at least up to the time of this study. Enumerated statements, found in 713 agreements, prevailed by a wide margin over general statements found in 147 agreements. General Statements. Management rights provisions in the form of a general statement were scattered widely among manufacturing and nonmanufac turing industries. The largest concentrations were in electrical machinery (20) and transportation equipment (17). Western Electric agreements accounted for three-fourths of the general statements in electrical machinery, while Boeing and Chrysler agreements together accounted for half the provisions in transpor tation equipment. Of the 147 general statements, 115 referred to management rights in broad but discernible areas; i. e. , the general right to direct the work force, control production, and manage the business. In enumerated statements, by contrast, each of these general rights would also include a number of specific rights. The language used to set forth these general rights varied little: The m anagem ent o f the plant and the direction o f the working forces, fun ction o f the com pany. (1) . . . are the exclu sive . . . the com pany shall continue to have the right to take any action it deem s appropriate in the m anagem ent of the business in a ccordance with its judgm ent. (2) The union and the loca ls recognize that . . . the supervision, m anagem ent and control o f the com pany's business, operations and plants are exclu sively the fun ction o f the com pany. (3) The frequency with which these 115 provisions cited a general right apparently reflected the importance of the issue in the collective bargaining framework. Thus, control of production was referred to in 82 of the 115 pro visions, direction of the work force in 80, and management of the business in 57. The remaining 32 general statements were written so broadly that none of these 3 general rights was explicitly identified. The bulk (27) established residual management rights;5 the remaining 5 employed language such as: The union recognizes the rights o f the em ployer . . union and the individual em ployees . . . (4) The union recognizes ment . . . (5) the right o f m anagem ent to direct and con trol the p olicies o f m a n a ge There w ill be no interference with, fun ction o f m anagem ent . . . (6) 5 . , and the em p loyer recognizes the rights o f the coercion , or restraint o f the For a discussion o f residual rights, see pp. 16—19. com pany in its exercise o f the 7 Enumerated Statements. Of the 860 management rights provisions, 713 scattered broadly throughout manufacturing and nonmanufacturing agreements contained a listing of specific management rights. Some provisions were relatively simple and short, as illustrated by the following examples: The union agrees that it is the right o f the com pany to engage and dismiss em ployees and to m aintain order and e ffic ie n c y o f operation. (7) The conduct o f the business and a ll the duties and responsibilities o f m anagem ent, including . . . the right to hire and fire, the directing o f the working force, establishment o f shifts and assignment o f work by the com pany, is vested exclu sively in the com pany . . . (8) >[' It is agreed that the m anagem ent o f the com pany in all its aspects shall continue to be vested in its board o f directors and the officers and agents designated by it, and that the com pany has the sole right to determ ine the methods o f work and standards o f perform ance o f each job and to m ake changes therein. (9) Others, however, were lengthy, with particular rights illustrated in detail: The right to hire; prom ote; discharge or discipline for cause; and to m aintain discipline and e ffi cie n cy o f em ployees, is the sole responsibility o f the corporation excep t that union mem bers shall not be discrim inated against as such. In addition, the products to be manufactured, the loca tion o f plants, the schedules o f production, the methods, processes, and means o f manufacturing are solely and exclu sively the responsibility o f the corporation. (10) It is agreed that . . . the com pany retains the sole right to m anage the affairs o f the business and to direct the working forces o f the com pany. Such functions o f m anagem ent include but are not lim ite d to the right to: D eterm ine the methods, products and schedules o f production, locations o f production, the type o f manufacturing equipm ent and the sequence o f manufacturing processes w ithin the works. D eterm ine the basis for selection , retention and prom otion o f em ployees w ithin the bargaining unit established in this contract. for occupations not M aintain discipline o f em ployees including the right to make reasonable rules and regulations for the purpose o f e ffic ie n c y , safe practices, and disciplin e. The com pany w ill inform the union o f any changes in existing rules and regulations or the establishments o f new rules and regulations b efore such changes are m ade effe ctiv e . Provided, however, that any com plain t as to the reasonableness o f such rules or any grievance in volvin g claim s o f discrim ination against any e m p loyee in the a pplication o f such rules shall be subject to the grievance procedure o f this contract. D irect generally the work o f em ployees subject to the terms and conditions o f this contract, in cluding the right to hire, to discharge, to suspend or otherwise discipline em ployees for good cause, to prom ote em p loyees, to dem ote or transfer them , to assign them to shifts, to deter m ine the amount o f work needed and to la y them o ff because o f la ck o f work. Determ ine the number and loca tion o f the com pany's plants. (11) * >;< >;< The m anagem ent o f each em ployer and its operations, the direction o f the work force, including the right to hire, retire, assign, suspend, transfer, prom ote, discharge, or discipline for just cause, and to m aintain discipline and e ffic ie n c y o f its em ployees and the right to reliev e em ployees from duty because o f lack o f work or for other legitim a te reasons; the right to determ ine the extent to w hich the plant shall be operated; the right to introduce new or im proved production m ethods, processes or equipment; the right to decide the number and loca tion o f plants, the nature o f equipm ent or m achinery, the products to be m anufactured, the methods and processes o f m anufacturing, the sched uling o f production, the m ethod o f training em ployees, the designing and engineering o f products, and the control o f raw m aterials; the right to assign work to outside contractors and to elim inate, change, or consolidate jobs and operations (subject to giving the union n otice o f such change); and the right to enact com pany p o licie s , plant rules, and regulations w hich are not in con flict with this agreem ent, are vested exclu sively in the em ployer. (12) 8 The m anagem ent o f the business, including the right to plan, determ ine, direct, and control store operations and hours; the right to study and introduce new methods, fa cilities, and products; the right to direct and control the work force, in cluding the determ ination o f its size and com position , the scheduling and assignment o f work; and also including the right to hire, assign, dem ote, pro m ote and transfer, to la y o ff or reduce the hours o f work because o f la ck o f work, to disciplin e, sus pend or discharge for proper cause, and to establish and m aintain reasonable rules and regulations covering the operation o f the store, a viola tion o f w hich shall be am ong the causes for discharge, is vested in the com pany; . . . (13) * * * A rticle V— M anagem ent The com pany alone shall determ ine: What business shall be taken and done and how same shall be done; What charges and rates therefor shall be; What m aterials, supplies, equipm ent, shall be purchased or procured; and m achinery shall be used and from whom the same The manner and m ethod o f operating the business; Number o f em ployees necessary and their com p eten cy; Who shall be em p loyed and discharged. . • . (14) Most frequently, enumerated provisions prefaced their listing of pre rogatives with a statement of management's general rights (i. e. , to direct the work force, control production, or manage the business). The m anagem ent o f the plant and the direction o f the working forces is vested exclu sively in the com pany, and the com pany shall continue to have all rights custom arily reserved to m anagem ent, including the right to hire, prom ote, suspend, disciplin e, transfer, or discharge for proper cause; the right to reliev e em ployees from duty because o f la ck o f work or other proper reasons; the right to schedule hours or require overtim e work; and the right to establish rules pertaining to the opera tion o f the plant, is vested in the com pany, provided, h ow ever, that this shall not be done in a manner w hich is in co n flic t with any other provision o f this agreem ent. The com pany shall have the sole right to d ecid e the process o f m anufacture, types o f m achinery and equipm ent to be used, types and quantities o f products to be m ad e, quality o f m aterial and work manship required, sellin g prices and products, methods o f sellin g and distributing products. (15) The m anagem ent o f the plant and the direction o f the working forces, including but not lim ited to the right to e m p loy, prom ote, d em ote, or discharge for proper cause; and the right to reliev e m em bers o f the working force from duties because o f la ck o f work and to decid e the methods and schedules o f production are vested exclu sively in the com pany. . . . (16) The com pany retains the exclu sive rights to m anage the business and plants and to direct the work ing forces. The com pany, in the exercise o f its rights, shall observe the provisions o f the agreem ent. The rights to m anage the business and plants and to direct the working force include the right to hire, suspend or discharge for proper cause, or transfer, and the right to reliev e em ployees from duty because o f la ck o f work or for other legitim a te reasons. (17) Where the prefatory statement referred to more than one general right, the enumerated list commonly carried examples of each. However, in some provisions the general right was not spelled out among the enumerated items. In clauses where only some of the general rights were enumerated, the item typically defined dealt with the direction of the work force. Least likely to be Digitized forillustrated FRASER was the right to manage the business. 9 Areas of Enumeration. In general, matters of concern in the manage ment rights area were evidenced by the number of times three broad issues were enumerated in agreements. Virtually all of these provisions emphasized actions relating to the direction of the work force, such as the determination of its size, work assignments, and scheduling of hours and overtime, while nearly three-fifths included various items dealing with production methods, e .g . , introduction of new machinery, determination of means of production, proc esses, workloads, etc. Far less prevalent were references to the conduct of such business affairs as type of product to be made, pricing, sales policies, etc. Workers Agreem ents (in thousands) Total enum erated provisions*----- 713 2, 8 6 9 .3 D irection o f the work f o r c e ------Control o f p ro d u c tio n ------------ -Conducting the business------------ 679 409 248 2, 650. 2 1, 78 0 .8 1, 1 7 9 .5 1 N onadditive. The frequencies with which these broad issues appeared shifted sharply as between general and enumerated statements of management's rights. Pro visions referring to the direction of the work force appeared more frequently in enumerated statements, whereas control of production and management of the business were found less often than in general statements. Apparently, if it was determined to list rights, those involving the direction of work force were considered to be of greatest importance. Percent referring to the issue in Issue Enumerated provisions General provisions A ll provisions 1------------------------ 1 0 0 .0 1 0 0 .0 D irection o f the work force — Control o f p r o d u c tio n -----------M anagem ent o f the business— 9 5 .2 5 7 .4 34. 8 6 9 .6 71.3 4 9 .6 1 N onadditive. Selected Enumerated Rights To examine certain enumerated rights in detail, a sample of nearly one-fourth (420) of the 1,773 agreements in the study was analyzed. Almost 52 percent of the agreements in the sample (218), as against 48 percent in the universe, had management rights provisions; almost 80 percent of the agree ments with management rights provisions in the sample (174) were enumerated as against almost 83 percent for the universe. These 174 enumerated provi sions were the basis for detailed tabulations illustrating selected rights except for those dealing with subcontracting and the location and number of plants, where the full universe of 713 enumerated provisions was used. The kinds of rights analyzed were not those commonly found in manage ment rights clauses, such as the rights to hire, fire, promote, and demote. Instead, emphasis was placed upon locating those functions which seemed to be especially relevant in an industrial relations environment experiencing changes in technology, work force composition, and levels of employment. 10 For purposes of presentation, these selected rights are discussed without referring to the limitations that have been written into such clauses. It should be kept in mind, however, that the bulk of clauses tabulated were written with various restrictions upon the employer’ s exercise of the rights specifically set forth. 6 Management of Business. 7 Rights dealing with management of business focused on fl) the determination of distribution and pricing policies, (Z) the formulation of financial policies and accounting procedures, (3) the determina tion of managerial organization, and (4) the determination of the product to be manufactured and sold (including research and development) which was by far the most numerous. As a general rule, provisions referring to rights involving management of the business listed employer functions in more than one of the areas listed above. The union recognizes the com pany's right to m anage the plant, including . . . the right to determ ine parts, services, and products to be m anufactured or purchased . . . the size and character o f in ventory, the determ ination o f financial p olicies including all accounting procedures, prices o f goods sold and custom er relations and the determ ination o f the m anagem ent o f the organization. (18) . . . the right to direct and control plant operations . . . includes . . . b. . . . the m anufacture and distribution o f the m aterials to be used and the size and character o f inventories. c. The determ ination o f finan cial p olicies including accounting procedures . . finan cial relations. d. The determ ination o f m anagem ent organization. . and customer (19) . . . decidin g . . . the products to be m anufactured . . . the designing and engineering o f prod ucts and the control o f raw materials . . . (20) S p e cifica lly , the union agrees, in order to clarify its recogn ition o f m anagem ent functions belonging exclu sively to the com pany, not to request the com pany to bargain with respect to the follow ing: . . . The right to determ ine pricing o f products. all methods o f sellin g, m arketing, and advertising products, including The right to m ake all finan cial decisions including but not lim ited to the adm inistration and control o f capita l, distribution o f profits and dividends, m ortgaging o f properties, purchase and sale o f securities, and the benefits and com pensation o f nonunion-represented personnel, the financing and borrowing o f capital and the m erger, reorganization or dissolution o f the corpora tion, together with the right to m aintain the corp oration ’s financial books and records in co n fi dence. This right includes the determ ination o f general accounting procedures, particularly the internal accounting necessary to m ake reports to the owners o f the business and to governm ent bodies requiring finan cial reports. The right to determ ine the m anagem ent organization o f each producing or distributing unit and the sele ction o f em ployees for prom otion to supervisory and other m anagerial positions. (21) 6 See pp. 19-23 for a full discussion o f lim itations upon m anagem ent rights provisions. ? Since rights dealing with m anagem ent o f the business, as defin ed, were considered m ore rem ote in their e ffe ct upon w orker's interests than others, none were tabulated. The clauses are cited to illustrate contract language on these points. 11 Direction of the Work Force. Of the 174 provisions, enumerating rights, almost 80 percent contained one or more of four rights concerned with the direc tion of the work force that were selected for study. 8 Workers Agreem ents (in thousands) T ota l enum erated p ro v is io n s ------------------------------------- 174 970. 1 T o ta l w ith selected rights to direct the work force 1 Size o f work f o r c e -----------------------------------------------Scheduling hours, overtim e, s h ift s ---------------------Assignment o f w o r k ----------------------------------------------T r a in in g ---------------------------------------------------------------- 135 126 34 447. 5 4 0 6 .9 1 6 3 .6 12 0 .0 3 1 .8 22 6 N onadditive, Chief among these particular rights was the employer's right to de termine the size of the work force, the term being defined broadly to include not only the number of workers, but also the composition or skill mix of the work force, layoff and recall of employees, and the involuntary retirement of workers by management under a pension plan. The following clauses are illustrative: . . . to determ ine, and from tim e to tim e redeterm ine, . . . the number and classes o f em ployees to be em p loyed or retained in em ploym ent. . . . (2 2 ) The com pany . . . shall have the right to determ ine how many em ployees it w ill em p loy or retain in various capacities and the size and com position o f working forces . . . (23) M anagem ent, at its own discretion, shall have the right to select persons for em ploym ent, to retire em ployees in accord a n ce with the provisions o f the "plan for em ployees pensions, " . . . (24) References to the other selected rights dealing with the direction of the work force were found much less frequently. The scheduling of hours and shifts, for example, usually was treated at length in the body of the agreement; that is, the details of scheduling were subject to bargaining and were agreed upon. Consequently, only a few agreements (34) dealt with these matters in the management rights clause. Where the management rights provisions made such a reference, it was usually phrased as follows: . . . to establish daily em ployees . . . (25) an d /or w eekly hours o f work by groups o f em ployees, a n d /or individual >!< ;!' . . . the establishment o f the opening and closing tim e o f stores, the assignment o f em ployees starting and stopping hours, the right to interchange em ployees starting and stopping hours . . . (26) . . . the number o f shifts to be worked, the hours o f the shifts, including starting and quitting tim e . . . (27) 8 Not tabulated am ong the s e lected rights, as previously noted, w ere the rights to hire, disciplin e, discharge for cause, transfer, prom ote and dem ote, and other rights com m on ly found in provisions. 12 Similarly, the determination of work assignment is governed by rules stipulated in the body of the contract in jurisdictional, seniority, and temporary transfer provisions. As a consequence, few management rights provisions (22) referred to it. One such reference reads: The em ployer alone shall determ ine . . . what tasks and work shall be assigned to the various em ployees from tim e to tim e and what em ployees shall from tim e to tim e be assigned to the various work . . . (28) More often, however, the clauses were less specific than in this illustration. A phrase, such as "the assignment of work" or "to transfer w ork," combined with a number of enumerated rights, was used to cover the issue. Few references to training appeared in management rights clauses: S ection 1. The m anagem ent o f ea ch em ployer and its operations, the direction o f the work fo rce , . . . the scheduling o f production, the m ethod o f training em ployees . . . subject to giving the union n o tice of such change; and the right to enact com pany p olicies, plant rules and regulations w hich are not in c o n flic t with this agreem ent, are vested exclu sively in the em p loyer. (12) Control of Production. Nearly three-fifths of the 174 enumerated state ments of managements rights referred to the right to determine methods of production and/or to introduce and install machinery.9 Both were especially pertinent for introducing technological change: Agreem ents T otal enum erated m anagem ent rights p r o v is io n s ----------------------------------T otal with s e lected rights to control prod u ction 1 -----------------------------D eterm ine methods o f p rod u ction -----Introduce and installm a c h in e r y -------- Workers (in thousands) 174 970. 1 102 7 2 6 .2 7 1 9 .2 652. 6 99 83 N onadditive. Provisions setting forth the employer's methods were typically phrased as follows: right to determine production . . . the determ ination o f what shall be produced and how it shall be produced are vested in the com pany . . . (29) >|c >;< >Jc It shall be the exclu sive right o f the com pany to determ ine . . and means of manufacture . . . (30) * * . the methods, . . . processes, * . . . the right to study or introduce new or im proved production methods or fa cilities . . . (31) Some provisions included references to the flow or sequence of production, thereby elaborating on the productive areas covered by management's right: 9 Not tabulated in the sam ple were other rights concerning the con trol of production, such as the right to schedule production, to establish shop or plant rules and regulations, plant safety procedures and programs, e tc. Plant lo ca tio n provisions are discussed later in this section. 13 . . . D eterm ine the m ethods, products and schedules o f production . . . and the sequence o f manu facturing processes. (32) . . . to establish methods and processes . . . and system o f production . . . (33) /jfn37 . . . to control the course o f flow , methods, The employer^ right to introduce new machinery or equipment was expressed in more diverse languag;e, among which was the following: . . . the control and regulations o f the use o f equipm ent and other property o f the em ployer . . . and m aking decisions o f tech n olog ica l methods and processes. (34) 5|< 5j< . . . Nothing in this agreem ent shall be construed to in any way restrict the installation, application o f labor-saving devices or equipm ent. (35) use, or Without lim itin g any o f its m anagerial rig;hts, fth e j com pany shall have the . . . unqualified right to install, alter, im prove, lo ca te , reloca te, or discontinue any m achinery or equipm ent • . . (36) Eighty of the 83 provisions linked the right to make technological changes with the right to determine or change production methods. In the event that the contemplated changes in methods of production would have a significant effect upon the work force, a few management rights provisions called for advance notice to the union: . . . to introduce m echanization changes or palletized loadin g or the use o f other equipm ent as m ay arise out o f the requirements o f its business; however, the em ployer agrees to discuss in advance with the union any broad changes in its operation w hich w ould result in the elim ination o f a substantial number o l jobs for m em bers o f the lo ca l union. (3 7) >\< >;< i\' In the interest o f progress and the developm ent o f the business o f the com pany, it is agreed that there w ill be no interference with the right o f the com pany to regulate the methods o f production or kind o f m aterials, supplies, m achinery, apparatus, and equipm ent used. If, due to the introduction o f new m achines, methods, apparatus, etc. , there is a substantial reduc tion in force in a department or departments, the union m ay request a m eetin g with the com pany to determine whether or not the em ployees a ffected can be retained in the service o f the com pany. (38) One agreement, however, specified that the anticipated impact upon the work force would not limit the employer’ s right to change production methods or machinery: . . . the right to introduce new or im proved methods, fa cilities, and equipm ent without regard to whether the same shall reduce the aggregate number o f em ployees or alter or change the type o f work o f any e m p loyee. (39) Subcontracting. Controversies surrounding management's right to sub contract work have erupted frequently in recent years and have led to a number of arbitration, NLRB, and court cases. In a major decision involving the Fibreboard Paper Products Corpora tion, the Supreme Court in December 1964, determined that the employer was obligated to bargain with the union over its economically motivated decision to 14 subcontract certain work. 101 The Court narrowed the scope of its decision to the facts of the case, but it has been the basis for NLRB actions directing em ployers to give notice and opportunity, to bargain with unions on subcontracting decisions where it involves (a) a departure from previously established practice; (b) effects a change in employment conditions; or (c) results in the impairment of job security or reasonable anticipated work opportunities.11 Thus, any a s sertion of management right to subcontract may be circumscribed. A 1959 Bureau study of subcontracting provisions found few manage ment rights clauses specifically asserting exclusive employer jurisdiction over subcontracting decisions. 12 In this study of management rights provisions, only 31 of 713 enumerated statements specifically referred to contracting out, but not all of the 31 provisions left management free of restrictions in exercising this right. In form, those provisions not setting limits on the employer simply stated management's right to subcontract, among a listing of other rights: . . . The com pany retains the sole right to m anage the affairs o f the business and to direct the w orking forces o f the com pany. Such functions o f m anagem ent include . . . the right to . . . subcontract work . . . (40) A ll functions, authorities and prerogatives, not n otified, abridged, or lim ite d by this agreem ent, including the m anagem ent o f the plant, the direction o f the work force, (and) the right to sub contract . . . are retained by and vested exclu sively in the em p loyer. (41) The following two provisions declared that the right to subcontract would not be subject to the grievance and arbitration machinery: . . . The right o f the com pany in its discretion, in w hole or in part, as circum stances require, is expressly recognized . . , The m anagem ent r i g h t s clause) . . . (42) o f the com pany s p e cifie d a b o v e . . . are e x e m p t to subcontract work, from (the arbitration 'fi >!< The m anagem ent o f the plant and the direction o f the working forces, including . . . the con tracting or subcontracting o f production, service, m ain ten ance, or other type o f work perform ed by the com pany . . . are vested exclu sively in the com pany, and . . . are not subject to the arbitration procedures provided in this agreem ent. (43) One hospital agreement exempted subcontractors from tracting employer’ s agreement: the terms of the con . . . to enter into agreements with others for the perform ance o f any o f its operations either inside or outside its present premises . . . In . . . the foregoin g event, the provisions o f this agreem ent shall not be binding . . . upon any person perform ing inside or outside o f the em ployer's premises any part o f the hospital operations. (44) A clause in one contract appeared to be a forceful statement of exclusive employer control over subcontracting— disallowing collective bargaining and bar ring union use of the grievance machinery— but it also stipulated that the em ployer could not discriminate or avoid bargaining with the union: 10 Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. NLRB, 379 U. S. 203. 11 See Westinghouse E lectric Corp. 58 LRRM 1257. 12 Subcontracting Clauses in M ajor C ollectiv e Bargaining Agreem ents (BLS Bulletin 1304, 1961). is in progress. A new study 15 . . . the exercise by the em ployer o f any one or more o f its exclu sive prerogatives, as defined and lim ite d (below ) . . . shall not at any tim e be subject to co lle c tiv e bargaining, or to review in a ccord ance with the grievan ce and arbitration procedure provided in this agreem ent. The category o f exclu sive prerogatives retained and reserved to the em ployer shall expressly in clude, and nothing herein shall be deem ed to lim it, im pair or qualify, the em ployer's exclu sive right to m anage the enterprise, to direct and control operations, and independently to m ake, and carry out, and exe cu te , all plans and decisions deem ed necessary, in its judgm ent, to the w elfare, advance m ent and best interests o f the enterprise. It shall include . . . the amount o f work to be sub contracted; provided, how ever, that no such action shall be taken to discrim inate against, or avoid bargaining with the union . . . (45) Clauses specifically limiting the employer tended to be more detailed than those not doing so. Restrictions varied, but generally were similar to those found* in provisions dealing with subcontracting arrangements as such. Thus, subcontracting would not be permitted where it would result in layoffs or part-time work for regular employees, or where it was not discussed with the union: . . . the com pany agrees it w ill not contract out any work which w ill result in layoffs or la ck o f work o f any em ployees covered by this agreem ent during the period o f this agreem ent. (46) . . . the com pany retains and m ay exercise the free and unrestricted right and privilege to contract or subcontract with any person or persons, not covered by this agreem ent, and with any firm or corporation (com m on ly known as outside contractors) for the perform ance o f any work, services, projects, jobs, or operations o f the character or nature heretofore so contracted or subcontracted and perform ed by outside contractors. The com pany shall not contract or subcontract for or assign any work, services, projects, jobs, or operations to outside contractors or subcontractors and which is norm ally perform ed by em ployees in this the bargaining unit before discussing same with the union. (47) Number and Location of Plants. Fewer than one-fourth of the 713 con tracts containing enumerated provisions used language bearing on plant movement: Plant loca tion provisions With enum erated m anagem ent rights----With reference to number and lo ca tio n o f plant 1 --------------------------------Location o f p la n t ------------------------------Number o f p la n ts ------------------------------Close down part or all o f a plant, departm ent, operation, or service - Agreem ents Workers (in thousands) 713 2, 869. 4 159 143 60 931. 6 9 1 0 .4 358. 3 36 8 8 .4 1 N onadditive. Most of these agreements covered multiplant companies where the transfer of operations and the closing of plants are most likely to occur. Conceivably, plant movement may not be an important issue in many collective bargaining situations. The impact, however, may be pronounced in particular industries and may result in special negotiations to ease its impact on affected workers. In meatpacking, for example, the shutdown of obsolete facilities triggered the formation of the Armour automation fund and study committee;13 in apparel, the problem of "runaway" plants was dealt with by provisions limiting the move ment of plants beyond a given geographical area. In many cases the parties have negotiated provisions to ease the impact of plant movement (e. g. , inter plant transfer rights, retraining rights, severance pay, etc.). 13 For a discussion o f this fund, see appendix C. 16 Of the 159 provisions which included plant movement among enumerated rights, the bulk (143) stipulated that the employer had the right to "locate" plants, implying the right to relocate plants. For example: The com pany shall be the exclu sive ju dge o f a ll matters pertaining to . . . the lo ca tio n o f plants or operations . . . (48) In 60 contracts, the clause referred to the employer’ s right to deter mine the number of plants. The intent of these clauses may permit the em ployer to reduce or shut down facilities as well as to increase or start new operations. Often the authority to locate plants and the right to determine the number of plants appeared together. Thirty-six agreements were more explicit. In clear terms, as in the following examples, they spelled out the employer’ s right to shut down plants in whole or in part: . . . to close any departm ent or the entire plant . . . (49) . . . rem ove the plant to another lo ca tio n as circum stances m ay require, or close or liquidate the plant. In case the com pany should determ ine that the plant shall be closed, rem oved, or liquidated, the union agrees that the operation shall continue without any slowing down until all stock and processes have b een com p leted . (50) Some provisions included special restrictions upon the employer's right to shut down facilities. The employer, for instance, could exercise his ad ministrative initiative, subject to the union's right to use the grievance proce dure; or the employer was required to consult with the union; or he was required to give consideration in hiring to workers from the abandoned plant or operation: . . . the right to change, reloca te, abandon, or discontinue any production, services, methods, or fa cilitie s; or to introduce new or im proved m aterials, methods or fa cilitie s . . . The foregoin g shall not be taken, however, as a lim ita tion upon the rights o f the union to represent the em ployees covered hereby in the procedures provided in this agreem ent. (51) '!< It is understood and agreed that the com pany reserves the right to expand, lim it, or curtail its operations, or to close down co m p le te ly when the com pany considers it advisable to do so. In the event o f any such change o f m ajor proportion, the union w ill be n otified at o n ce , and at the request o f the union the com pany w ill m eet with the union bargaining com m ittee to consider the seniority provisions of this agreem ent. A change o f m ajor proportion is m eant to m ean a reduction in force o f 20 percent or m ore in any seniority departm ent. (52) * * * The right o f the com pany in its sole discretion to dim inish or discontinue operations in w hole or in part, or to rem ove the plant, or any part or parts thereof, to another lo ca tio n or locations from tim e to tim e as circum stances m ay require, are recogn ized. In the event of any such rem oval o f the plant or parts thereof to a new loca tion , consideration w ill be given to requests of em ployees in volved for jobs at such loca tion . (53) Residual Rights Slightly more than a third of all management rights provisions included a savings clause reserving for the employer all those rights not specifically abridged or affected by the provisions in the collective bargaining agreement. Moreover, the rights enumerated were to be considered illustrative rather than all-inclusive. Nearly three-fifths of the provisions including a residual clause were concentrated in six manufacturing industries: 17 With m anagem ent rights provision Industry 860 A ll in du stries------------------------M a n u fa ctu rin g-----------------------C h em icals -----------------------Primary m e ta ls -----------------Fabricated m etal products M a ch in ery -------------------------E lectric m a c h in e r y ---------Transportation equipm ent N onm anufacturing-----------------* W ith residual rights 1 645 1 Percent with residual rights 298 3 4 .7 253 39. 2 5 2 .5 2 3 .7 4 0 .0 5 2 .0 40. 5 4 3 .8 2 0 .9 40 97 45 75 74 105 215 21 23 18 39 30 46 45 Includes industries not shown separately. In 27 agreements, the residual rights provision was linked with a general statement of management rights. Com pany shall continue to have all of the rights which it had prior to the execu tion of this a gree ment excep t such rights as are relinquished herein. (54) It is not the purpose o f this agreem ent to infringe or im pair the normal right o f the com pany to make and p la ce in e ffe ct its decisions. Any o f the rights, powers, or authority the com pany had prior to the signing o f this agreem ent are retained by the com pany, excep t those sp e cifica lly abridged, delegated, granted, or m od ified by this agreem ent.’ (55) Subjects or procedures not s p e cifica lly covered in this contract and w hich in the normal course of events are m anagem ent's prerogatives shall rem ain within the discretion o f m anagem ent. (56) Nothing contained in this agreem ent shall be deem ed to lim it the com pany in any way in the exercise o f the regular generally recognized customary functions and responsibilities o f managem ent unless such functions and responsibilities are contrary to the express provisions of this agreem ent. M oreover, such functions o f m anagem ent as m ay be included herein shall not be deem ed to lim it other functions o f m anagem ent not sp e cifica lly included herein. (57) Most residual rights in two major forms. statements were found in enumerated provisions Agreem ents Workers (in thousands) T o ta l with m anagem ent rights provisions - - 860 3, 501. 5 T ota l with residual rights provisions -----------Enumerated rights not in clu s iv e -------------Rights not m od ified by contract are retained by m a n a g e m e n t---------------------Rights not exercised are not thereby w a i v e d -------------------------------------------------Residual rights are not subject to a r b itr a t io n --------------------------------------------O ther 2 -----------------------------------------------------No reference to residual r i g h t s -------------------- 298 199 1, 1 2 9 .0 6 8 5 .6 117 5 0 3 .9 8 1 9 .2 6 1 2 .2 1 3 .7 2, 372. 5 Type o f residual rights statement 562 1 N onadditive. 2 R esidual rights o f m anagem ent are reinforced by statement that rights w aived in past grievance settlements or otherwise are not to be considered departures from the inherent rights o f m anagem ent. NOTE: Because of rounding, sums of individual items may not equal totals. 18 The most frequent approach adopted to reserve rights for management was a statement emphasizing that the listing of specific rights was not inclusive. The em ployer shall have full right to direct the progress o f the work and to exercise and control, including but not lim ited to . . . (58) all function Other rights and responsibilities belonging solely to the m anagem ent . . . are hereby recognized prom inent am ong w hich, but by no means w holly inclusive are . . „ (59) It is recognized and agreed that in addition to other functions and responsibilities w hich are not otherwise s p e cifica lly m entioned in this paragraph, the com pany has and w ill retain the sole right and responsibility . . . (60) . . . It is agreed that these enumerations o f m anagem ent prerogatives shall not be deem ed to exclu de other prerogatives not herein enum erated. (61) The second most prevalent approach provided that rights not ’’modified, ” "abridged, " "delegated, " or "granted" anywhere in the collective bargaining agreement were reserved to the employer. . . . If not sp e cifica lly set forth in this agreem ent, there shall be no abridgem ent or dim inution o f any function, authority, right, or responsibility o f the com pany. (62) . . . W ithout lim itation , im plied or otherwise, all matters not s p e cifica lly and expressly covered or treated by the language of this agreem ent m ay be adm inistered for its duration by the com pany in a c cordance with such p o licy or procedure as the com pany from tim e to tim e m ay determ ine. (63) . . . and, in addition, the com pany retains and reserves all other rights w hich it possessed prior to the making o f this agreem ent, subject only to the extent that such rights of m anagem ent are s p e c ifi ca lly relinquished or lim ited under the terms of this agreem ent. (64) A ll functions o f every kind directly or indirectly involving the operation of the store and not s p e c ifi ca lly dealt with in this agreem ent are reserved to the com pany . . . (65) Eight clauses stipulated that rights not exercised were nevertheless re tained by the employer. One such clause read: The com pa n y’ s not exercising rights hereby reserved to it, or its exercising them in a particular way, shall not be deem ed a waiver of said rights or o f its right to exercise them in som e other way not in c o n flic t with the terms of this agreem ent. (66) As an additional safeguard, six contracts excluded residual rights from the grievance and arbitration procedures. Clauses from three of these con tracts follow: Except as s p e cifica lly abridged, delegated, granted, or m od ified by this contract, a ll of the rights, powers, prerogatives, and authority the com pany had prior to the execu tion of this agreem ent are retained by the com pany and rem ain exclu sively and within the rights of m anagem ent and are not subject to the grievan ce-arbitration procedures. (67) >\< 19 Except as otherwise s p e cifica lly provided in this agreem ent, the com pany retains a ll the rights and functions o f m anagem ent that it has by law and the exercise of any such rights and functions shall not be subject to arbitration. (6 8 ) >!< >|< >\< . . . A ll rights heretofore exercised by the com pany or inherent in the com pany and not expressly contracted away by the terms o f this agreem ent are retained solely by the com pany. Such rights shall not be subject to arbitration and may not be im paired by any arbitrator in any decision ren dered by him . (42) Limitations Explicit restrictions on management rights were imposed in more than 90 percent of the agreements with such provisions. M anagem ent rights provisions General statements Enumerated statements Lim itations T ota l T ota l with p r o v is io n s ------ 860 147 713 Rights l i m i t e d ----------------Rights not lim ited ---------- 801 59 131 16 670 43 Only 59 contracts placed no specific restrictions upon the employer in the exercise of his rights. Some stressed that the rights listed could be exer cised ’’without lim itations,” or ’’without interference” or would not be subject to negotiations: The m anagem ent o f the plant and the direction and control o f the working fo rce , including without lim ita tion o f the foregoin g, the right to hire, transfer, and to suspend, discharge, or term inate for proper cause, are vested exclu sively in the com pany, (69) * >!< * . . . in no instance shall the union or its representatives interfere with the exercise of such authority and responsibility. T h e em ployer reserves the right at a ll tim es to be free from interference regard ing the persons, firm s, and corporations from w hom it makes purchases, and also w ith w hom it makes contracts for hauling and delivery and construction and repair o f buildings o ccu p ied by, or to be o c c u pied by, the em p loyer; and the union agrees not to interfere in any respect with such purchases and contracts, or with the law ful and legitim a te conduct of the business by the em ployer. (70) >\< 5jc >\< The direction o f the working force and the m anagem ent o f the business are vested exclu sively in the com pany, and neither these matters nor other regular or customary functions o f m anagem ent shall be within the scope o f this agreem ent nor the subject of c o lle c t iv e bargaining negotiations. (71) The 801 provisions which set one or more limitations upon manage ment’ s use of its rights, in effect restricted the management prerogative to matters not preempted by an agreement provision. In about 15 percent of these provisions, some, but not all the rights set forth in the provision, were limited. Most likely to be limited were functions concerned with the direction of the work force. However, the particular rights that were limited, or conversely, 20 those that remained unabridged, varied among agreements, perhaps reflecting the accommodations arrived at by the parties on particular issues. 1. T he com pany shall exercise the functions o f hiring, transferring, prom oting, dem oting, suspend ing discharging, laying off, reca llin g, and the establishment o f rules and regulations at its sole discretion, excep t as these functions are sp e cifica lly restricted b y the terms of this agreem ent, 2. T he type of product manufactured, the loca tion o f plants, the planning and scheduling of production, the scheduling of work hours, the establishment o f labor standards, and the intro duction, o f new production methods and new or im proved m achinery shall be the exclu sive fu n c tion o f m anagem ent . , . (72) >\< S ection 2, . . . Guides in the Adjustm ent o f D ifferences as guides in adjusting and settling . , , differences the parties agree that: (a) Sole com pany responsibilities: The determ ination o f the type o f products to be manufactured, the loca tion o f plants, the methods, the schedules o f production, processes, and means of manufacture are solely the responsibility o f the com pany. (b) Q ualified com pany responsibilities: The m anagem ent of the plants and the direction o f the working forces, including but without being lim ited to the right to hire, prom ote, dem ote, transfer, classify, reclassify, make layoffs for la ck o f work or other legitim ate reasons, and for just cause to discharge, suspend, or otherwise disciplin e em ployees, are vested e x clu sively in the com pany, provided, however, that the com pany shall take no action in con n ection with these matters that is prohibited by this agreem ent. (73) * >;< The m anagem ent o f the Greensboro plant is the fu ll responsibility the sole right to plan, direct, and control operations; to establish by groups o f em ployees, an d /or individual em ployees; to hire, em ployees for proper cause; the right to select materials used in im proved production methods and /or fa cilities, provided that such as to co n flic t with any o f the other provisions o f this agreem ent. o f the com pany and shall include daily an d /or w eekly hours o f work disciplin e, suspend, or discharge m anufacture, to introduce new or authority shall not be exercised so It shall be the sole right o f the com pany to dim inish operations in w hole or part, or to rem ove the plant for operation or business of same or any part thereof, to any other loca tion as circ u m stances m ay require. (74) S ection 5. Functions o f M anagem ent A. The union recognizes the exclusive right of the com pany to determ ine its operating p olicies and manage its business in the light of experience, business judgm ent, and changing conditions. It is understood and agreed that a ll rights, powers, or authority possessed by the com pany prior to the signing o f this agreem ent shall be retained by the com pany. However, the grievance procedure hereinafter set forth in a rticle III shall be a pp licable to com plaints regarding the m eaning, a p p lica tion, interpretation, or adm inistration o f any provision ol this agreem ent lim iting the follow in g functions of m anagem ent, which are the only ones lim ited by this agreem ent, nam ely, the right to: D eterm ine the qualifications o f and select em ployees for prom otion; transfer em ployees from one jo b to another and from one cla ssifica tion to another; determ ine the number and arrangement o f work shifts; determ ine the starting and stopping tim e of each shift; contract for construction or other work when in the judgm ent o f the m anagem ent such action is to the best interest o f the com pany; deter m ine w hich em ployees shall be laid off; prepare jo b titles and definitions, establish jo b classifications and determ ine the work to be perform ed by em ployees; disciplin e em ployees for m isconduct on the jo b or other v iola tion o f rules and discharge em ployees for just cause. B. Other functions o f m anagem ent include the right to determ ine the qualifications for and select its m anagerial and supervisory forces; select and hire new em ployees and determ ine the q u a lifi cations needed; determ ine the number o f em ployees it w ill have in its service at any tim e; adopt, and revise when necessary, reasonable rules and regulations governing the operation o f its busi ness and the conduct o f its em p loyees on the jo b ; introduce new plants and fa cilitie s ; reloca te fa cilitie s ; discontinue the operation of plants and fa cilities and introduce new methods to im prove operating e fficie n cy . 21 C. It is understood and agreed, however, that the functions o f m anagem ent referred to in this section 5 are not a ll-in clu s iv e and that the omission o f any o f the usual inherent and fundamental rights o f m anagem ent does not constitute a waiver of such rights by the com pany. D. It is also understood and agreed that the follow in g , to the extent that they pertain to form er Penn W ater em ployees, are matters for determ ination solely by the com pany and m ay b e m od ified or term inated at any tim e by the com pany at its discretion: (1) Rental o f com pa n y -ow n ed dwellings. (2) R ecreational fa c ilitie s . (3) Any other existing practice not s p e cifica lly provided for in this agreem ent, the m od ifica tion or term ination of w hich is not inconsistent with any provision of this agreem ent. (75) A review of a sample of general and enumerated statements revealed that one restriction, by far more prominent than all others, emphasized that the exercise of management’ s rights could not conflict with other provisions of the contract and thus underlined the supremacy of specific agreement provisions which modify management's rights. This restriction, of course, is implied in all written agreements: Workers Agreem ents (in thousands) Nature o f lim itations T ota l general and enumerated statements -------------- Having lim itations 1-------------------------------------------------Lim ited by other provisions of the c o n t r a c t ------Safeguard against abuse or d is cr im in a tio n -------Lim ited by resort to grievance m a c h in e r y -------Required to discuss or negotiate with u n io n ------No s p e cific lim itations ------------------------------------------1 218 1 ,1 4 4 .2 205 185 48 46 1 ,0 8 2 .6 7 0 2 .8 4 3 9 .6 1 4 2 .0 1 8 .4 6 1 .6 10 13 N onadditive. The following clauses are examples of statements in contracts limiting management's rights by other provisions of the contract: . . . subject only to the express and s p e cific provisions of this agreem ent. . . . provided that in carrying out these m anagerial functions the terms o f this agreem ent. (77) . . . unless expressly lim ited by this agreem ent . . . (76) com pany does not v iola te the (78) . . . none o f the provisions o f this paragraph shall supersede any o f the other provisions contained in this contract. (79) In 48 provisions, the employer agreed not to exercise his rights in an arbitrary or capricious manner or (in a few cases) to discriminate against em ployees or applicants for employment because of union activity or for other reasons: . . . The provisions of this article shall not be used arbitrarily or ca priciously as to any em p loyee or for the purpose o f discrim inating in any manner against the union o f its mem bers. (80) '!< 22 . . . provided, however, that such rights shall not be used so as to discrim inate against any e m ploy ee because o f m em bership in the union or in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of this agreem ent. (81) . . . but such rights shall not be em p loyed for the purposes of discrim ination against the em p loyee because of bona fid e a ctivities on behalf o f the union or because of race, creed, color, or p o litic a l b e lie f. (82) About the same number (46) of provisions, specifically made manage ment's rights subject to the grievance procedure. Under such a proviso, man agement could initiate policy, subject to subsequent challenge by the union as to whether it constituted a violation of the agreement: . . . e xcep t as hereinafter lim ited b y grievan ce procedure. (83) . . . provided any decision . . . w hich is contrary or in v iola tion o f the provisions o f this a gree ment shall be subject to the grievance procedure. (84) * '!< * The responsibilities given to the com pany in this a rticle shall not be exercised in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner, and any action taken by m anagem ent hereunder insofar as it m ay have a substantial e ffe ct on wages, hours, or working conditions o f em p loyees, shall be review able under the grievan ce and arbitration procedure provided in this agreem ent. (85) Some provisions stipulated how the grievance procedure was lenging the employer's administrative initiative. Thus, the could be employed against disciplinary actions; or it could interpretation or application of the agreement was involved; certain matters, grievances could be brought, but arbitration . . . and, excep tin g disciplinary suspensions and discharges, cedures provided in this agreem ent. (43) to be used in chal grievance procedure be employed only if or, with respect to was disallowed: are not subject to the arbitration pro . . . it being understood however that grievances arising under this section may be taken to arbi tration provided such grievances in volve the a pp lication or interpretation o f other sections of this agreem ent w hich relate to those subjects . . . . . . H owever, any question arising as to the adequacy o f any production standards or inspection frequency shall be subject to the grievance procedure, but not arbitration. (86) In 10 provisions, the company was required to give notice, consult, or bargain with the union if, in exercising certain rights, specific changes were made: . . . It is agreed that the com pany w ill give the union 10 days n otice o f any anticipated m ajor change in the com pany's methods o f operations. (87) . . . Should any question arise as to the reasonableness o f any new schedules of work, the com pany shall upon request o f the union, consult with respect to any such question. (88) * * * T he com pany w ill not change the structure of the established systems during the life o f this a gree ment, ex ce p t by mutual agreem ent betw een the com pany and the union. (89) 23 Over a third of the provisions employer's rights: set more than one restriction upon the The responsibilities given to the com pany in this article shall not be exercised in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner, and any a ction taken by m anagem ent hereunder insofar as it m ay have a sub stantial e ffe c t on wages, hours, or working conditions of em p loyees, shall be review able under the grievan ce and final settlem ent procedure provided under this agreem ent. (90) * * # . . . provided, however, and the com pany hereby agrees, that such rights shall not be used so as to discrim inate against or be unfair to any m em ber o f the union and it shall not be used in a manner that w ill co n flic t with or viola te any o f the terms or provisions o f this agreem ent, and further, should the' provisions o f any rule instituted by the com pany be ch allenged on the grounds that it is unreasonable, this shall raise a dispute issue for disposition under the contract. (91) Revisions of Management Rights Clauses To determine the extent and nature of changes in management rights clauses over a period of time, a sample of 14Z agreements, distributed over a variety of industries and unions, was selected for special analysis. The clauses could be traced back to 1955 or 1956. This analysis indicated that in about four-fifths of the agreements the management rights clause, once negotiated, was left undisturbed. Changes were noted in 28 agreements, including 8 in which such a clause was added for the first time. In two agreements, two separate revisions were made in clauses appearing in the earliest contracts examined. Most of the changes occurred in recent years, particularly in 1961 (6 agreements), 1962 (10), and 1963 (7). As a rule, the changes resulted in clauses that were more elaborate and more specific. Among the items intro duced into existing clauses were the right to locate plants (seven) and the right to subcontract (five). Other stipulations introduced included the right to de termine methods, means, and processes of production, to assign and to sched ule work, and to determine the products to be manufactured and their prices. Nine provisions added limitations, most often those making rights sub ject to other provisions of the agreement. In another nine agreements, residual rights language was written into the clause. From agreement effective July 1, I960 The right to m anage the plant and to direct the working forces and operations o f the division, in clu d ing the right to hire, disciplin e, suspend, or discharge for just cause, to prom ote, dem ote, and transfer its em ployees subject to the provisions o f this agreem ent, is vested in and retained by the division. From agreement effective August 10, 1964 It is recognized and agreed that in addition to other functions and responsibilities w hich are not otherwise s p e cifica lly m entioned in this paragraph, the division has and w ill retain the sole right and responsibility to direct the operations o f the division, and in this con n ection to determ ine the n um ber and lo ca tio n o f its plants; the product to be manufactured; the types o f work to be perform ed or to be subcontracted out; the schedules o f production; shift schedules and hours o f work; the m eth ods, processes, and means of manufacturing; to select, hire, classify, evaluate, prom ote, and de m ote em ployees; and to make and apply rules and regulations for production, disciplin e, e fficie n cy , and safety. It shall also have the right and responsibility to discharge or otherwise discipline any em p loyee for just cause, to la y off because of lack of work or other cause, and to transfer e m ployees excep t as sp e cifica lly lim ited by expressed provision o f this agreem ent. (92) * * * 24 From agreement effective May 1, 1956 A rticle II M anagem ent Responsibility The right to hire, la y off, and discharge em ployees for just and law ful cause; and the m anagem ent disposition, and number o f working forces are am ong the sole prerogatives of the com pany; provided, however, that this section w ill not be used to discrim inate against the union and m em bership thereof and also this section w ill not in any way abrogate or interfere with the em p loyees' rights under the terms o f this agreem ent, including the use o f the grievance and arbitration procedure. From agreement effective July 1, 1965 M anagement R esponsibility The right to hire, la y off, and discharge em ployees for just and law ful cause; and the m anagem ent, disposition, and number o f working forces, the right to contract out work, the right to make rea sonable assignments o f job s; to determ ine the products to be m anufactured, processed or handled by the e m p loyee; to establish production schedules, methods, processes and means and ends; to deter m ine its general business practice and p o licy ; to open new units, assem bly lines, departments and operations and to term inate or close them ; to make prom otions to supervisory or execu tiv e positions; to increase or decrease the working fo rce are among the sole prerogatives o f the com pany; provided, however, that this section w ill not be used to discrim inate against the union and m em bership thereof and also this section w ill not in any w ay abrogate or interfere with the e m p loy ee's rights under the terms o f this agreem ent, including the use o f the grievance and arbitration procedure. (93) 5|c >;< s[< From agreement effective December 1957 A rticle VI U nion-M anagem ent R elations S ection 1. M anagem ent The m anagem ent o f the business, including the right to plan, direct, and control store operations and to determ ine store hours, and the direction o f the working forces, including the right to hire, assign, prom ote, and transfer; the right to suspend or discharge for good and sufficient cause; and the right to relie v e em ployees from their duties because o f la ck o f work, dishonesty, insubordination, poor perform ance on the jo b , and for other legitim a te reasons, are vested exclu sively in the com pany. From agreement effective December 1961 T h e m anagem ent o f the business, including the right to plan, determ ine, direct, and control store operations and hours; the right to study and introduce new methods, fa cilitie s , and products; the right to direct and control the work force, including the determ ination o f its size and com position , the scheduling and assignment o f work; and also including the right to hire, assign, dem ote, prom ote and transfer, to la y o ff or reduce the hours o f work because o f la ck o f work, to disciplin e, suspend or discharge for proper cause, and to establish and maintain reasonable rules and regulations covering the operation o f the store, a viola tion of w hich shall be am ong the causes for discharge, is vested in the com pany; provided, however, that these rights shall be exercised with due regard for the rights o f the em ployees and provided further that they w ill not be used for the purpose o f discrim ination against any em ployees. The listing o f s p e cific fights in this agreem ent is not intended to be, nor shall it be considered restrictive o f or a waiver o f any rights o f m anagem ent not listed and not sp e cifica lly surrendered herein, whether or not such rights have been exercised by the e m ployer in the past. (13) Chapter II. Union-Management Cooperation Introduction Formal commitments to cooperate in raising the quantity and quality of production, in improving sales, or in achieving common legislative goals have traditionally had little appeal to American labor and industry. Except for cer tain well-publicized efforts, particularly during World War II, most unions and employers, either by tacit understanding or the will of one party, have by and large limited their formal relationships to collective bargaining and to the pro cessing of grievances. Informal relationships, particularly among supervisors and union stewards at the work level, have always been common. The findings of the present study confirm the continued reluctance of management and unions to enter formal cooperative arrangements. Only about a fourth of all major agreements contained explicit references to union-management cooperation as such. In the overwhelming number of cases, no formal machinery was established to implement it. Rather, the cooperation clause was confined to a pledge on the part of the union to support particular policies, notably in the area of production and efficiency and less frequently in matters dealing with promotion of company products or in technical innovations. Such a pledge, what ever its standing in terms of enforceability, nevertheless indicates a positive commitment by the union. The pledge underscores for the workers and union stewards the value of cooperation. Only about 5 percent of all major agreements called for joint committees to deal with issues that are normally a sole management prerogative. A large proportion of these were accounted for by ’’industry advancement funds" in the construction industry and by Armour-type study committees in meatpacking. To some degree, the relative scarcity of formalized cooperative arrange ments reflects long-standing union and management attitudes as to their respective functions. As a matter of policy, management may avoid such collaboration because it is considered as, or may lead to, an encroachment on managerial prerogatives. Many employers prefer to deal with the union at arm ’ s length, limiting joint negotiations only to those issues on which they are legally required to bargain. Similarly, unions may not wish to become too closely identified with company policies. Rank-and-file workers often tend to view such coopera tion with misgivings, fearing that it may result in lack of militancy by union of ficials in pressing contract demands and in grievance handling. On the other hand, a desire to avoid formal commitments rather than a desire to avoid cooperation may explain the low prevalence and the limited nature of union-management cooperation provisions. There are certain advantages to informal ad hoc cooperation, including the ability to dissolve the arrangement after the purposes are achieved or if failure is inevitable without publicity or without jeopardizing the next attempt. An agreement provision, in contrast, is fixed for the term of the agreement and may be difficult to change thereafter. 25 26 A study of contract provisions cannot, of course, measure the extent and nature of joint efforts not specified in the agreement. Appendix A describes several arrangements of this type. Most other common undertakings, particularly those directed at short-term ad hoc goals, do not ordinarily come to public at tention. The most typical form of cooperation is at the plant level in face-toface meetings between company and union officials in the course of resolving issues that arise in the daily operation of the plant— all contributing to tacit un derstandings which in every bargaining relationship supplement formal policies. The present study discusses collectively bargained cooperation pledges and committees dealing with issues in which management normally reserves the right to act unilaterally, a point underscored in numerous "management pre rogative" clauses cited in the preceding section, namely, production and allied activities, including technological change, company welfare and sales promotion, and legislative policies. Not accounted for in the present study are committees established to resolve particular issues or administer programs arising out of the agreement, such as incentives, job evaluation, grievances, and safety, health, and insurance programs. Bargaining committees established to spread contract negotiations over a longer period of time, or to work out the basis for contract negotiations, are not covered either, although in the course of their meetings such committees may move into the area of management prerogatives. Under this definition, the broad-gaged automation fund, found in the Armour and Co. agreement and in other meatpacking company agreements, is included in the study, while the Human Relations Committees in the steel industry, because of their primary concern with bargaining issues— such as incentives, job classifica tion, subcontracting— are excluded. Implicit agreements to cooperate are also excluded (e .g . , the wording of the annual improvement factor provision in auto mobile agreem ents14). Scope of Study The coverage of this study is the same as that for management rights provisions (see p. 3). In appendix A, four examples of union-management cooperation arrange ments arising outside the agreement are described. The clauses cited in this study are identified in appendix D. In appendix C several provisions are re produced in their entirety to illustrate how the parts fit together. Appendix C also reproduces the features of the Armour and Co. automation fund. Related Studies The study of management rights provisions in this bulletin provides a contemporary background against which union-management cooperation provisions can be viewed. Other studies in this series mentioned in connection with manage ment rights (p. 3) also have a bearing upon union-management cooperation. In the broadest meaning of the term, an evaluation of the extent and nature of unionmanagement cooperation will develop from the series of studies as a whole. Prevalence One out of every four agreements in the study (450 of 1,773 contracts) contained provisions for union-management cooperation on production problems, technological change, sales promotion, legislation, and similar managerial prob lems (table 2). These involved 1. 9 million of 7. 5 million workers covered by1 1 See M ajor C o lle ctiv e letin 1 4 2 5 -4 , 1966). Bargaining Agreem ents: D eferred W age Increase and Escalator Clauses (BLS Bul 27 contracts in the study, also about 1 out of 4. Nearly half of the provisions were accounted for by five industry groups, each having more than 30 agreements with specified cooperation clauses: Transportation equipment (55), food (42), construction (42), transportation (33), and electric and gas utilities (33). Most of the cooperation provisions (377) were pledges that the union would cooperate in achieving these goals or facilitating the adjustment set forth in the clause (e.g. plant efficiency, product quality, sales improvement, etc.). Occasionally, the union’ s pledge included an acknowledgement that the gains won by its members in collective bargaining were paid for by improved productivity and/or sales. Since cooperation embraced areas traditionally reserved to manage ment, in which the employer could act on his own if he preferred to, only the union's pledge to cooperate was called for. Sometimes, however, the union's pledge was coupled with one from management, usually to cooperate on labormanagement matters or to guarantee that workers would not be hurt by their participation in joint efforts. Ninety-two agreements, about a fourth of the number pledging cooperation, established joint committees or funds. Half were accounted for by two industries. In food and kindred products there were 18 joint committees, a number of which were Armour-type funded study committees. These were negotiated following the landmark agreement reached by Armour and the Meat Cutters, and the Packing house Food and Allied Workers in 1959, both AFLr-CIO affiliates. Construction agreements accounted for 28 industry promotion or "advancement" funds. As a general rule, the extent of union participation in these promotion funds was limited. Outside the construction industry, however, the operations of the joint committee represented a firmer commitment to cooperate than the casual pledge. It pro vided a mechanism to discuss problems in particular areas and to implement agreed upon solutions. Two-thirds of the agreements having cooperation provisions involved single employer units. The remaining one-third (152) covered multiemployer bargaining units, but these accounted for more than two-thirds of all the joint committees or funds found in the study (67 of 9 2 ). Form o f cooperation _____ Pledges Joint and joint com m ittees com m ittees and/or a nd/or funds funds Em ployer unit Total studied Total with provision A ll a g r e e m e n t s ---------------------------- 1, 773 450 358 73 19 1 ,3 23 Single em ployer a g r e e m e n t ------M u ltiem ployer a g r e e m e n t s --------- 1 ,0 99 674 298 152 273 85 20 53 5 14 801 522 Pledges No provision Areas of Union-Management Cooperation Formal statements of union-management cooperation centered primarily upon in-plant production problems. Provisions calling for union participation in company welfare and sales promotion were less frequent. Agreement clauses which authorized joint action on legislative and tariff matters were uncommon. Nearly 15 percent of the cooperation provisions dealt with various aspects of technological change, as shown on the following page. 28 Form o f cooperation Total Area o f cooperation Pledges Joint com m ittees an d /or funds Pledges and joint com m ittees and /or funds A ll u nion -m anagem ent cooperation provisions 1 ----- 450 358 73 2 19 Production p r o b le m s -----------------------------------------------T e ch n o lo g ica l c h a n g e --------------------------------------------Com pany/industry w elfare and sales p r o m o tio n ----Legislative and ta riff matters --------------------------------- 345 64 180 9 301 44 136 5 37 20 7 - 42 4 - 2 N onadditive. Total exceeds individual parts because pledges and join t com m ittees in m ore than 1 area have been a lloca ted to each area. Pledges and joint com m ittees appearing here, account only for those operating in the same area but on different subjects; e. g. , a pledge on absenteeism and a joint com m ittee con cerned with production suggestions. 1 2 In its own way, each of the provisions had a bearing upon the economic health of the enterprise, thereby reflecting a mutual understanding as to the source of job security for workers. Each also represented areas in which unions could participate effectively. For example, union aid in solving production prob lems and in the introduction of technological change could result in greater out put at lower costs; union promotion of "union-made" goods could improve sales of retail products; and the union as an organized group and as part of a larger labor movement might be helpful in bringing joint views on legislative and tariff matters to the attention of the appropriate governmental agencies. Production Problems. Of 450 union-management cooperation provisions, 345, or about three-fourth, focused on production problems. Most (301) of these were pledges of assistance in a variety of production matters. They were over whelmingly operative at the plant or company level rather than on a multiemployer basis, as shown below. Level o f coop eration Form o f cooperation A ll cooperation on production problem s Total Com pany or plant Industry or m u ltiem p loyer Both ------- ------ 345 317 22 6 Pledges only ----------------------------------------------------- -----Joint com m ittees o n l y -------------------------------------- -----Pledges and joint c o m m it te e s -------------------------- ------ 301 37 7 298 15 4 1 2 21 1 - 3 Joint committees (37) were divided between those operating at the plant level (15) and those functioning on a multiemployer basis (21). 15 One operated at both levels. Most committees were multipurpose, dealing with production as well as other problems. 15 Com m ittees prim arily con cerned with sharing savings on an in cen tive basis (e. g. , the Kaiser lon g range sharing plan) or those established under the s o -c a lle d Scanlon Plan, w ill be exam ined in other studies in this series. the introduction for additional inform ation. Digitized forSee FRASER 29 Plant level production committees, which flourished during World War II with the encouragement of the War Production Board, have since become rare. One of the few formal arrangements found in major agreements is described in the following association agreement in which both labor and management pledged that they would urge the formation of a committee in each employer’ s shop: The union and the cou n cil shall urge the form ation o f production com m ittees in all shops o f the em ployers for the purpose o f elim inating waste, im proving methods o f production, m aintaining quality standards o f workmanship and for the further purpose o f prom oting cooperation betw een labor and m anagem ent for the g ood o f all and recom m en d that special consideration be given by way o f prizes to workers in the shops for suggestions, proposals and ideas w hich w ill m ake for greater e f fi cie n cy and advanced methods o f production as, if and when such proposals and ideas are a ccep ted by managem ent. (94) Provisions for cooperation in production matters often took the form of a brief statement in which the union pledged its support in achieving efficient or economical operations. The com pany pledges itself to give its em ployees considerate and courteous treatment, and em p lo y ees in turn pledge them selves to render the com pany loyal and e fficien t service. (95) * sjc >;< The miners agree to cooperate with the operators to the extent that coa l w ill be produced m ore e f ficien tly and e co n o m ica lly . (96) It is agreed that the em ployees w ill cooperate with m anagem ent within the obligations o f this agree ment to facilita te the e fficie n t operation o f buildings. (97) Frequently, the union pledged its adherence to the standard of a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay. Although this type of clause was found in a number of industries, there was a noticeable cluster among agreements in the automo bile industry. The union reaffirm s its adherence to the principle of a fair day's work for a fair day's pay, and agrees to use its best efforts towards this end, both as to work and as to conduct in its perform ance. (98) The union agrees to investigate with the association, and on the merits, all cases o f a lleged failure o f em ployees to carry on e fficie n t operations and give "a day's work for a day's pay, " and w ill give its full support to insure to each em ployer a fair and e fficie n t standard o f work from his em ployees. (99) The union agrees that it w ill cooperate with the com pany in prom oting faithful and e fficie n t work perform ance by the com pany's em ployees both individually and co lle c tiv e ly . The union subscribes to the con cept that the com pany is entitled to a full day o f work from each em p loyee for a full day's pay. (1 0 0 ) The intent not to restrict output or to tolerate featherbedding was explic itly stated in several agreements. It is the intent o f the parties to secure and sustain m axim um productivity per em p loyee. In return to the com pany for the rates herein provided and consistent with the principle o f a fair day's work for a fair day's pay, the union emphasizes its agreem ent with the ob jectives o f ach ieving the highest le v e l o f em p loyee perform ance and e ffic ie n c y , and agrees that the union, its agents and its m e m bers w ill not take, authorize, or condone any action w hich interferes with the attainm ent o f such o b je ctiv e . (1 0 1 ) 30 The union agrees that every em p loyee shall perform a full day's work and further agrees that: (a) The setting o f arbitrary restrictions on production output by workers, or (b) The a ction of one or m ore union m em bers in influencing or attem pting to in flu ence others to restrict their production, . . . are each contrary to the principle o f a full day's work. ( 1 0 2 ) The em ployer and the union, recognizing the necessity for elim inating restrictions and prom oting e f f i cie n cy , agree that no rules, customs or practices shall be perm itted that lim it production or increase the tim e required to do the work, (103) The union agrees that it w ill do everything within its power to cause the em ployees covered by this agreem ent, individually and co lle c tiv e ly , to perform and render loy a l and e fficie n t work and serv ic e , and shall not tolerate featherbedding nor take any action w hich w ould create any unnecessary work . . . (104) A large group of provisions focused on strengthening efficiency through savings in tim e, manpower, and m aterial. Several included absenteeism and tardiness among their goals. The union further pledges for itself and its members that they w ill fu lly coop erate in the follow in g : The reduction o f shrinkages of a ll kinds; in the saving o f m aterials, tools, m achinery, equipm ent, and all com pany property by means o f careful handling and use; in m inim izing breakage and losses o f any kind caused by careless handling . . 0 (105) The union recognizes that continued la rg e-sca le em ploym ent at a fair w age can continue only as long as a high le v e l o f productivity is m aintained. The parties agree that this result is dependent upon a ch ieving a high quality o f individual em p loyee perform ance and e ffic ie n c y and the union undertakes to encourage its mem bers in the attainm ent of this o b je ctiv e . This can be done by reducing scrap and spoilage, good care of tools and equipm ent, a m inim um amount of tim e wasted and careful and e co n o m ica l use of supplies, including water, steam, and e le ctricity . . , ( 1 0 b) It is agreed that the union w ill cooperate with the em ployer in an effort to reduce to a m inim um all practices w hich result in a loss o f e fficie n cy and needless expense. Inasmuch as "w aste" is c o m prehensive in scope, it is im possible to enumerate all of the practices w hich might be in volved. H ow ever, s p e cifica lly the coop eration w ill include: Elim ination o f Waste of T im e. Elim ination o f stopping work before the recogn ized w ash-up tim e, taking excessive tim e during the morning co ffe e break, lining up at the c lo ck before the recognized quitting tim e. Waste o f M aterials. finished m aterial. Improper processing o f m aterial, reduction o f scrap, careless handling of Conservation o f T ools and Equipment. Elim ination o f careless handling o f sm all perishable tools resulting in excessive breakage, wear and breakage o f tools caused by running at feeds and speeds in excess of that prescribed by the em ployer, excessive wear o f m achine tools and equipm ent by running at excessive feeds and speeds, im proper setup when not follow in g designated m achining methods, careless use o f em ployer provided handtools, n egligen ce in the use of em ployer provided measuring instruments. R edu ction of A bsenteeism . Conservation of Supplies. soap, paper tow els, e tc. R edu ction o f excessive and unwarranted absenteeism and tardiness. Elim ination o f waste o f everyday supplies such as paper, stationery items, (107) >;< ;>]< >\< 31 The union and com pany agree to m utually make every reasonable effort . . . waste, . . . absenteeism and tardiness . . . (108) to elim in ate m aterial The union therefore agrees that it w ill cooperate with the com pany and support its efforts to assure a fu ll day's work on the part o f its m em bers; that it a ctiv ely w ill com ba t absenteeism and any other practices w hich restrict production . . . (109) As specified in one agreement, "surplus em ployees" could be used on jobs other than their own, or even dism issed: The parties agree that they w ill cooperate together toward the elim ination of to exist in any operation in the plant. This means the making o f normal e fficie n t operation; the elim ination of surplus em ployees where a surplus is form ance o f duties on related jobs when not reasonably busy on their own in e fficie n cy where proven adjustments necessary to proven to exist; the per jobs. (H O ) Another area of union-management cooperation concerned the protection of property. Clauses cited previously which pledged worker effort to prevent the waste or breakage of tools and equipment tend in this direction. In public utilities, however, the emphasis is broader. Substations, depots, and other facilities are usually dispersed over large geographical areas. They may be un manned and serviced on regular schedules by traveling crew s, or they may be manned by sm all crews in relatively isolated areas. In either case, protection of company property against vandalism becomes a problem for management that could be eased with union assistance: The union agrees that its mem bers who are em ployees of the com pany w ill individually and c o l l e c tiv e ly o • . use their in flu en ce and best efforts to protect the property o f the com pany, and w ill cooperate with the com pany to this end at a ll tim es. (Ill) In plants producing a marketable retail product or using m aterials easily resold, and in warehousing and other distributive industries, thefts could become a mutual problem requiring cooperation: The parties acknow ledge that protection against unexplained loss and disappearance of com pany m er chandise before, during, and after processing, is a serious problem to the com pany in the operation o f its factories. The union w ill cooperate with the com pany to elim inate this problem . (112) The party o f the second part w ill not try to uphold in com p eten cy, broaching o f cargo . . . (113) shirking o f work, pilfering or In the aerospace industry, cooperation in the protection of property focused on reporting acts of sabotage and on apprehending those committing such acts: The union agrees to report to the com pany any acts of sabotage or dam age to or taking o f com pany, governm ent, custom er, or any other person's or em p loyee's property, and the union further agrees, if any such acts occu r, to use its best efforts in assisting to determ ine and apprehend the guilty person. (114) * * * The union and its mem bers agree to report to the division any acts of sabotage, subversive activities, theft, dam age to or taking o f any em p loyee's, division and /or governm ent property or work in process or m aterials, or any known threat o f sabotage, e t c . , subversive a ctivities, or dam age to or taking o f such property, and the union further agrees to use its best efforts in assisting the division and the governm ent to determ ine and apprehend the guilty party or parties. (92) 32 In contrast to the illustrations cited previously, another group of a gree ments dealt with quality rather than cost. These clauses referred to the "q u a lity of production, n the "quality of the workmanship, " and the improvement of w o rk ers1 skills: Both parties recognize that it is to their mutual interest and to the best interests of both the com pany and its em ployees . . . . . . if the quality of the com pany's products is im proved . . mem bers to attain these ends, (68) 5k 5k . The union w ill encourage its 5k o . . it is recognized that for continuous operation o f the. plants and for as steady em p loym ent as possible, coop eration for the com m on good of the parties is essential* It is therefore m utually agreed that the parties shall work together to: Improve quality o f the product . . . reduce departm ental product defects . . . dev elop jo b pride. (115) * * * . . . It further agrees that it w ill support the com pany in its efforts to im prove production; . . . im prove the quality o f workmanship; . . . (116) The union may also pledge to encourage workers to "achieve the degree of skill required" or to a ssist in establishing in-plant training program s. It may participate in joint committees authorized to develop, supervise, or establish training or retraining program s. 16 It is agreed that latitude and fle x ib ility in the developm ent o f m aintenance trades em ployees and their assignment o f work is essential. It is agreed that m aintenance trades em ployees w ill a ccep t assignment to m aintenance and repair work accord ing to past practice and w ill perform such tasks to the best o f their ability. The union agrees that it w ill cooperate in encouraging its members who are now in the m aintenance trades departm ent and new em ployees com in g into the departm ent to a ch ieve the degree of skill required to perform the various m aintenance tasks in the plant. (85) There shall be a jo in t m anagem ent labor jo b training com m ittee com posed of an equal number of designated representatives o f the union and M etropolitan Container C ou n cil, Inc. This com m ittee shall schedule m eetings and dev elop a program for jo b training and related problem s such as costs, seniority and methods o f training. (117) . . . Im m ediately after the execu tion of this agreem ent a jo in t training com m ittee shall be estab lished, consisting of six mem bers, three to be appointed by the union and three to be appointed by the publishers' association, to supervise a training program for perforator operators. (118) A co m m itte e com posed of an equal number o f representatives o f the union and the association shall m eet for the purpose o f establishing a program for the retraining of new em ployees and em ployees in lesser skilled crafts to more skilled crafts, in order to replenish the manpower a vailable to the industry. (119) Training and retraining provisions in c o lle c t iv e bargaining agreem ents are the subject o f another study in this series. 33 Where cooperation on production problems was to be the concern of a joint committee, most agreements stressed that its authority was limited to making recommendations. Implicitly or explicitly, the committee was not to engage in collective bargaining or in agreement administration. The com pany and the union agree that a com m ittee o f authorized representatives o f the com pany and the union m ay m eet at dates and places m utually agreed upon for the purpose o f prom oting cooperation, harmony and e ffic ie n c y , . . . (1 2 0 ) A joint com m ittee w ill be appointed in each com pany for the purpose o f studying and suggesting ways o f correcting wasteful and in efficien t operations. R ecom m endations o f the com m ittee w ill be sub m itted to the IBOP and USPA for approval. (121) A com m ittee com posed o f nine m em bers as designated by the union and nine m anagem ent members as designated by the com pany shall be established for the purpose o f a ccom plish ing through cooperative effort their mutual o b je ctiv e to increase e ffic ie n c y and productivity and to im prove the conditions o f em ploym ent. The com m ittee shall m eet on ca ll by either party at a tim e w hich shall be m utually convenient to the parties. Its function shall be to outline the problem s that concern those ob jectives and to the extent that mutual agreem ent m ay be reached, endeavor to find ways o f accom plish ing such ob jectives consistent, however, with the provisions o f this agreem ent. The com m ittee shall not engage in co lle c tiv e bargaining nor in any way m od ify, add to, or detract from the provisions o f the basic agreem ent. (1 2 2 ) An exception to the above limitation was noted in an agreement for the New York wholesale meat industry. In this situation, decisions arrived at by a joint committee on "job shifting" were to become part of the agreement. (a) The union agrees to appoint three representatives to a labor-m an agem en t com m ittee which shall consist o f said three union representatives and three em ployer representatives appointed by Meat Trade Institute, Inc. It shall be the function o f said com m ittee to exam ine any and all questions arising under this agreem ent w hich m ay be referred to said com m ittee by the union or Meat Trade Institute, Inc. , and to m ake such recom m endations with respect thereto as w ill best serve to carry out the intent and purpose o f this agreem ent stated in the pream ble thereto. (b) The said la bor-m anagem ent com m ittee is hereby also expressly em pow ered to . . . adopt such rules and regulations . . . as may serve to assure stability o f em ploym ent and em ploym ent tenure a n d t o d is c o u r a g e u n w a rra n te d j o b shifting by em ployees, and it is hereby expressly agreed that any such rules and regulations as m ay hereafter be adopted by said com m ittee shall be considered part o f this agreem ent and shall have the same force and e ffe ct as if originally fully set forth in this agreem ent. (123) Technological Change. In total, 64 agreements specifically provided for union-management cooperation in the introduction of new equipment, machinery, or processes. Over two-thirds were pledges to participate, most of which fo cused on technological change in the single company or plant. Joint committees, on the other hand, were equally divided between those operating in a single plant or company and those functioning on a multiemployer basis. Level o f cooperation Form o f cooperation Total Com pany or plant Industry or multi em ployer 14 A ll cooperation on tech n olog ica l c h a n g e ----- - - - 64 50 Pledges o n ly ----------------------------------------------------- - - Joint com m ittees o n l y ------------------------------------ - - - 44 40 4 20 10 10 The 44 pledges were scattered widely among a variety of industries, but food processing and retail food stores in combination accounted for 13. Since of the 20 joint committees, including Armour-type automation study funds, were Digitized for14 FRASER 34 also found in food processing agreements, a total of 27 agreements of the 64 in volving joint participation in technological change centered in the processing and distribution of food products. This concentration reflects both the availa bility of new machines or processes and the degree of competition existing in these industries. The eight pledges in retail food store agreements employed the follow ing identical language: The union recognizes the everchanging methods in the trend of food merchandising and agrees to c o operate in the installation of such methods and in the edu cation of its members in the necessity of such changes. . . (124) The reference in these clauses to educating members to the necessity of change highlights the role that a union pledge to cooperate plays in dampening worker resistance to technological change. In the first illustration, below, this objective is explicitly stated. A simple declarative statement, as in the second illustration, that makes no specific reference to what form the union's coopera tion is to take, is the more typical pledge: The parties recognize and acknow ledge that the increase in wages and other benefits herein granted to the em ployees depend, to a great extent, upon te c h n o lo g ica l progress, better tools, methods, processes and equipm ent, and a coop erative attitude on the part of the em ployer and the union. The union agrees that it w ill encourage, rather than resist, such progress, and that it w ill not assert any dem and for increased wages for a particular jo b by reason o f changes in the jo b , unless such changes result in a substantial, m aterial and significant increase in the skill or labor required for the jo b . (125) The union agrees to coop erate in the establishment o f new methods, processes, and equipm ent. (126) A limit upon the scope of the pledge to cooperate may aid in reducing resistance if the pledge reassures workers about their own status. That is to say, workers would be more willing to participate in change if they knew that they would not be hurt as a result of their own cooperation and that any detri mental impact would be alleviated. 17 For example, the clauses frequently stressed that cooperation was to be affected under existing contract standards. . . . The union therefore agrees not to oppose the introduction or operation o f new equipm ent or changes in processes or production methods subject to the terms and conditions o f this agreem ent. (127) The national agreement involving the Clothing Manufacturers Association of the United States and the Clothing Workers (AFLr-CIO) used more specific term i nology in that it assured workers that their grades, wages, and employment would not be impaired: The union has long cooperated with em ployers in the introduction of new m achinery, changes in manufacturing techniques, and tech n olog ica l im provem ents in clothin g plants. This p o licy has been established by mutual agreem ent, generally on a market le v e l, betw een the em ployer and the union. Underlying such agreem ent has been the recogn ition o f these basic conditions: grades as provided in this agreem ent, wages o f the a ffected workers w ere not to be reduced, and workers were not to be thrown out o f em p loym ent. Such p o licy is reaffirm ed and shall continue to be dependent, preferably by mutual agreem ent on a market le v e l, excep t that should a particular change have substantial repercussions in the clothin g industry generally, the assent o f the general ex ecu tiv e board of the A m algam ated C lothin g Workers o f A m erica shall be required . . . (128) Another multiemployer agreement declared that neither earnings nor work load would be detrimentally affected. Another provision specified that rates, 17 For a fu ll discussion o f lim its on a ll u nion -m anagem ent ecia lly pertinent to te c h n o lo g ica l change are illustrated here. Digitized fore sp FRASER coop era tion clauses, see pp. 4 4 -4 5 . Only those 35 incentive standards, crew sizes, grievance procedure: and workload would be protected through the . . . it being clea rly understood that the installation o f new and im proved m achinery, equipm ent and production methods shall not give rise to a loss in earnings to any em ployees a ffected , nor shall any additional expenditure of effort be required of them . (129) The union recognizes that the installation of incentives, cutting m achines, m ech an ical devices or the introduction of new methods o f operation w ill require the elim ination, com bin a tion or rearrangement o f jobs, either within a departm ent or betw een departments, to enable the com panies to secure more e fficie n t operations, increase production, reduce costs, and im prove their com p etitiv e position in the industry. The union assures the com pany that it w ill cooperate - and assist in making such changes and w ill not invoke contractual bars against the changes being m ade. Any discussion of any change w ill be lim ited to the particular case. Base rates, in centive standards, crew sizes, and the question o f physical hardship on changed or revised jobs w ill be subject to the grievance procedure of the con tract. (130) Finally, the following provision required advance notice of technological change and also obligated the employer to find other jobs for those displaced as a result of the change: C ooperate in the installation o f methods and tech n olog ica l im provem ents and suggest other im p rove ments where possible, it being understood that the com pany w ill make such installations after advising the union, and w ill cooperate in placing any em ployees whose jobs are elim inated through such methods or te ch n o lo g ica l im provem ents. (131) Fourteen of the 20 joint committees dealing with technological change were concentrated in food and kindred products; 8 of the 10 company level com mittees were in meatpacking. The latter were patterned upon the committee established under the Arm our agreements with the Meat Cutters, and the Pack inghouse, Food and Allied W orkers. These provisions established funds to finance studies of the impact of change on the work force. They facilitated the discussion of complex problems away from the bargaining table. Based upon their findings, the committees could also make recommendations to the p a r t ie s .18 Despite ex pressed union dissatisfaction with the study com m ittee, the Armour fund was continued in the 1964 n egotiation s, a lt h o u g h no a d d i t i o n a l m o n e y w a s a l l o c a t e d to it. Meatpacking study committees and funds represented the only tripartite com mittees found in the study. The remaining joint committees were bilateral in makeup, and m ost were unfunded. As study com m ittees, their authority was limited generally to making recommendations: The parties m utually express their interest and con cern about the im pact on manpower and conditions o f em ploym ent, resulting from tech n olog ica l im provem ents and autom ation. The parties desire to utilize to the best advantage of the com pany and the em ployees scien tific im provem ents. The e m ployer and the union, therefore, shall establish a com m ittee known as the com m ittee on autom ation, consisting o f six persons equally representing the em ployer and the union. The fun ction o f the c o m m ittee shall be as follow s: (a) (b) (c ) T o study the e ffe ct o f such changes on the utilization of manpower; T o study the data on te c h n o lo g ica l changes as they occu r and the e ffe ct on manpower r e quirements; T o m ake such recom m endations as are agreed upon to extend the benefits o f autom ation to em ployer and em p loy ee. (132) >!< sj< 18 The fu ll agreem ent provision is reproduced in appendix C. 36 A study co m m ittee shall be form ed which w ill study the problem o f tech n olog ica l change c id its e ffe ct on long term em ployees in the bookbinding industry., Each side shall select its three m. . ibers within 10 days after the signing of this contract and notify the other party im m ediately and m eet within 90 days o f the e ffe ctiv e date 0 (133) A jo in t co m m ittee consisting o f an equal number o f em ployer and union representatives shall be fonr.ed to make a factu al study of autom ation and m echanization in plants covered by this agreem ent. It shall submit a report to the em ployers and the unions . . . Neither the form ation o f such com m ittee, nor the study to be undertaken, nor the report that be m ade, shall be deem ed to constitute an agreem ent by either party to substitute the format?.; study by, or report o f such com m ittee for c o lle c t iv e bargaining on the subject o f automat m echanization. or Any issues with regard to autom ation or m echanization that m ay be raised by either party (after the study report is subm itted) shall be subject to free c o lle c t iv e bargaining, without prior om m itment . . . (134) The third committee illustrated above, involving the California Process. Growers Association and the Teamsters (Ind. ), operated with the support < and Federal officials. Aided by Federal funds, the State, in a demonsti project, analyzed aspects of technological change in California canneries the committee. d 3 Two provisions stressed the advisory nature of these committees stipulating that differences arising between the parties could not be srbmitt • c grievance and arbitration procedures for settlement. One of the two stipule tec that "economic action" over disputed committee activities was prohibited: There shall be established a com m ittee to be known as ’’ The C alifornia Brewing Industry C om m ittee on A utom ation. " The com m ittee shall be com posed of an equal number o f representatives o f the union and o f the C alifornia Brewers Association. The co m m ittee shall study the problem o f autom ation in relation to the brewing industry in all o f its aspects. i i C alifornia The com m ittee shall report to the union and the . em ployer 180 days prior to the term inatior date of this agreem ent. „ . . Disputes w hich m ay arise under the provisions of this section shall not be subject to the g rie v ance and arbitration provisions o f this agreem ent. (135) NOTE: In the superseding agreem ent, the study com m ittee was dropped. Instead, the parties estab lished a funded jo in tly adm inistered system o f supplem ental unem ploym ent benefits available ‘ tim e o f la yoff. . . . The establishment and operation o f the com m ittee shall be on a good faith basis, and dispute*: and grievances w hich m ay arise therefrom or in con n ection therewith shall not be subject to the grievance procedure of the c o lle c tiv e bargaining agreements betw een the parties; nor shall any e c o n om ic action be taken or threatened by any o f the parties, their respective mem bers, or by any members o f the com m ittee respecting any a ction or lack o f a ction by the com m ittee. (136) NOTE: The superseding agreem ent deleted the study com m ittee. The agreem ent now provides for advance n otice and discussion of la y off as a result of the installation of new m achines or processes. The new clause continues the bar against em ploym ent o f the grievance procedure and the strike ; these deliberations. On the other hand, in one maritime agreement, a committee was to udv the impact of automation upon marine engineers. Compensation for job loss*. •>. claimed by the union, were to be determined through the grievance procec -e: The com pany and the union agree to undertake a study o f the subject o f autom ation and its im pact upon the engineers. In the event the union contends that autom ation has resulted in the loss o f jobs to the engineers, the matter o f com pensatory measures m ay be processed as a grievan ce under s e c tion 2. (137) 37 Company/Industry Welfare and Sales Promotion. Of 450 union-management cooperation clauses, 180, or 2 out of 5, provided for participation in improving company or industry welfare or sales. About three-quarters of these 180 were and m ost centered on w e lfa re and sa le s the of com pany. Level o f cooperation Form o f cooperation Total Com pany or plant Industry or m u ltiem ployer Both A ll cooperation on com pany industry welfare and sales p r o m o tio n ------------------------ 180 120 43 17 Pledges only --------------------------------------------------Joint com m ittees o n l y ----------------------------------Pledges and join t c o m m it te e s ------------------------ 136 42 2 112 8 8 34 1 16 - - 1 In contrast to the general prevalence of all union-management cooperation provisions (table 2), clauses of this type in nonmanufacturing agreements out numbered those in manufacturing, reflecting the number of pledges in the trucking industry, and in electric and gas utilities as well as the construction industry promotion funds. In trucking contracts, the inclusion of pledges to advance both company and industry interests serves a practical end for both parties to the agreement in helping to increase the volume of business for individual trucking concerns in the face of increasing competition from railroads and airlines. In electric and gas utilities, operations are vested with a public interest and subject to control by regulatory commissions. Almost a third of the electric and gas utilities agree ments studied included pledges that the union would cooperate in advancing the company's welfare, services, and community relations. Over half the joint com mittees (28) were accounted for by construction industry advancement funds, which are discussed separately. Except for a cluster of pledges in food and kindred products agreements promising union assistance in product sales, the welfare and promotion provisions were widely dispersed on an industry basis. Clauses fell into 1 of 2 categories: Those adopting general terminology, and those specifically dealing with promotion of company products. General pledges at either the company or industry level utilized broad language promising coop eration in furthering the company or industry's "interests" or "welfare. " Among these was the typical trucking clause pledging aid to both company and industry, as in the last illustration below: Employees o f the com pany agree . . . that they w ill cooperate with the com pany in prom oting and advancing the w elfare and prosperity o f the com pany at all tim es. (138) Im m ediately upon the signing o f this agreem ent a labor-m anagem ent com m ittee shall be estab lished. . . . The purpose o f the com m ittee shall be to prom ote and perpetuate harmonious re lations, to study and recom m en d ways and means o f prom oting the e co n o m ic w elfare o f the em ployers and the members o f the union. . . . (139) The unions shall cooperate with the em ployer to prom ote the w elfare o f the industry and the e fficie n cy o f the factory operations o f the em ployer . . . (140) >[z >\< The union, as w ell as the members thereof, agree at all tim es as fully as it m ay be within their pow er, to further the interests o f the trucking industry and o f the em ployer. (141) 40 In furthering sales efforts, the parties agreed to place the union label on products or to display the "union shop card" on the owner’ s p rem ises. Bread, garm ents, appliances such as stoves, and fashion a c ce sso rie s, among other item s, are products carrying the union's label. Restaurants, hotels, retail stores, and meat and grocery markets are among the establishments displaying union cards. In a few provisions, the union label or card is specifically tied to sales promotion: The union and the em ployer agree on the desirability o f having an identifying union la b e l in the products o f the industry. The proceeds from the sale o f the union la b el to be paid for by the e m ployers, shall be used to prom ote the sale of A m erica n -m a d e handbags and pocketbooks. Six months prior to the expiration o f the contract a com m ittee of the New York Industrial C ou n cil o f the National Authority for the Ladies' Handbag Industry, a com m ittee o f o u t-o f-to w n em ployers, and the union, shall m eet to d ecid e the e ffe ctiv e date o f the use o f the la b el. (149) T h e unions agree to furnish to ea ch em ployer a union house la b el upon the signing o f its standard individual house card agreem ent; it is understood, however, that such union house la b el shall rem ain the property o f the unions and shall be surrendered by the em ployer upon dem and. The unions further agree to use their in flu ence with organized labor and its friends to patronize exclu sively such places as display the union la b el. (150) The provisions from the Hatters, and the United Textile Workers agree ments are illustrative of funded arrangements to finance sales promotion. In the first two provisions below, employer contributions are a percent of gross payroll, and in the third, payments are based on hours worked. Failure to pay is ex plicitly stated in one as a breach of contract. One of the clauses highlights the use of the industry's health and welfare fund as a collection agency, while another touches on the authority of the fund's trustees. Each em ployer agrees to contribute to a fund heretofore established by the N ational Cap and C loth Hat Institute, I n c ., a sum equal to 1 percent o f the gross payrolls o f all its em ployees covered by this agreem ent. The contributions to the said fund shall be used for the purpose o f prom oting the consumption o f caps and cloth hats and for the general w elfare o f the industry. Failure o f an em p loyer to make the contributions provided herein shall constitute a breach o f this agreem ent w hich m ay be rem edied in the same manner as any other dispute, cla im , or controversy arising under the agree m ent. (151) T w en ty-S econ d: Trade Prom otion. (a) T h e association and the union recognize that there is urgent need for con certed action on the part o f m anagem ent and labor for the purpose of prom oting the sale and use o f m illinery, creating greater consumer dem and therefor and for stabilizing and im proving conditions in the industry. Cognizant of this pressing need, the em ployers shall pay w eekly to the M illinery Prom otion Fund, I n c . , a m em b er ship corporation, whose board o f directors shall be com prised o f em p loyer and union directors, a sum o f m oney equivalent to 1 percent o f total w eekly payroll including overtim e (before d ed u ction of taxes) o f the em p loyer's workers covered by this agreem ent. Such m oneys so contributed and paid to the M illinery Prom otion Fund, I n c ., shall be used by it for the aforesaid purposes, thus increasing the sales volu m e o f manufacturers, with resultant increased em ploym ent and greater earnings to the workers. In order to fa c ilita te the c o lle c t io n o f the aforesaid 1 percent by the M illinery Prom otion Fund, Inc. and to avoid du plication o f services and cost in the c o lle c t io n thereof, the trustees o f the m illin ery health and w elfare fund be and they are hereby authorized and em pow ered to and shall c o lle c t and re ce iv e the said 1 percent from the em ployers, and upon receip t th ereof prom ptly rem it the same, less their reasonable cost o f co lle c tio n to the M illinery Prom otional Fund, Inc. (152) 5I; >!< Prom otional Fund. T h e em p loyer hereby agrees to contribute 2 - 1 /2 cents for every hour w orked by ea ch em p loy ee not exce e d in g 40 hours in each w eek, to the S ch iffli Lace and Em broidery Institute, Inc. for the purpose o f prom oting the S ch iffli Embroidery Industry. 41 The trustees o f said institute shall consist o f four representatives o f m anagem ent and four union rep re sentatives. The four union representatives shall be designated in writing by Local 211, United T e x tile Workers o f A m erica . The four em ployer representatives shall be elected by means o f an industrywide e le ctio n to be held not later than June 15, 1960. Those e lig ib le to vote or to be e le cte d shall be em ployers in contractual relationship with Local 211. It is understood that the present trustees of said institute shall continue in o ffic e until their successors have been determ ined. The trustees subject to the purposes and lim itations set forth herein shall have absolute discretion in the expenditure o f the fund. The trustees shall receiv e no com pensation whatsoever for their services. (19) In makeup, these provisions are sim ilar to construction industry advance ment funds. Promotion Committees and Funds in the Construction Industry. In addi tion to the examples cited above, 28 agreements in the construction industry dealt with sales and craft promotion by means of funds and com m ittees, variously called industry promotion funds, or industry program s, but most often industry advance ment funds or program s. Among the few confined exclusively to trade and product promotion was the following: In order to advertise to the pu blic the b en efit and value of the use o f brick and other masonry m aterials, to prom ote understanding o f the process o f manufacturing, utilizing, and m aintaining brick and masonry m aterials, and to raise the standing and standards of bricklayers and masons in the com m u nity, an industry prom otion fund shall be established. (153) More often, committees or funds had multipurpose functions which included public relations and market development among a sometimes lengthy list of committee goals or authority: A rticle XIII Industry Fund S ection 1. A ll em ployers o f laborers under this agreem ent agree to contribute 2 - 1 /2 cents per hour for each hour for w hich the em p loy ee is to be paid, to the Keystone Building Contractors A ssociation in care o f Construction G eneral Laborers' Local Union in whose ju risdiction work is being done, for the purpose o f establishing a construction industry program in the interest o f prom oting the com m on good through the carrying on of activities w hich m ay include, but not be restricted to the prom otion o f safety, market developm ent, the protection o f legitim a te markets, standardization o f contracts, pu b lic relations, labor relations, education, research and the provisions o f means and methods whereby the general contractors m ay ava il them selves o f com bined efforts in securing for them selves and their workm en just and honorable dealings from the pu blic whom they serve, (154) The association agrees to establish an industry advancem ent program for the purpose o f m eeting a ll costs to the association of conducting labor relations, and all matters and problem s incidental thereto, on an industrywide basis in the greater Rochester area for the benefit of all contractors perform ing work in said area. The a ctivities to be finan ced by the funds o f the industry advancem ent program m ay include, but shall not be lim ited to, the follow in g : Safety and a ccid en t prevention; apprenticeship training and other educational programs; pu blic relations, industry relations; m anagem ent expenses in con n ection with c o lle c t iv e bargaining on an industrywide basis and in the m aintenance o f grievance procedures; m anagem ent costs of participating in join t apprenticeship, health and w elfare, and pension programs; providing security for, or paying the premiums for surety bonds to secure, the payments r e quired under this a rticle to the extent required by the provisions o f this article; and such other com par able a ctivities as m ay be engaged in from tim e to tim e . The board o f directors o f the association, in a ccord a n ce with its by-law s, shall administer the fund o f the industry advancem ent program. (155) Among the advancement activities included in one agreement was the goal of obtaining maintenance and repair work in industrial plants, an area of growing interest to construction industry employers and unions but one which has gen erated considerable interunion controversy. The association m ay use the moneys a lloca ted and paid into the fund o f the industry advancem ent program . . . for carrying out the follow in g industrywide a ctivities . . . for the benefit o f the building and construction industry . . . . . . Public relations— for exam ple to conduct a pu blic relations program for the b en efit o f the building and construction industry . . . , particularly to make an effort to obtain the work in industrial plants . . . . . . Market developm ent— for exam ple, to educate industrial owners and governm ent awarding (156) authorities and agencies to contract out construction m aintenance and repair work . . . 42 The legal status of industry promotion funds had not been fully resolved at the time of this study. On the one hand, the National Labor Relations Board considers joint promotion funds a p erm issive, but not mandatory subject of co l lective bargaining. 19 On the other hand, the courts have considered that employer contributions to such funds are at least questionable, if not prohibited under s e c tion 30Z of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 as amended (the section dealing with restrictions on payments to union officials). 20 Because of the legal prohibition, the agreement cited below specifically bars union leaders from r e ceiving any money from the fund. . . . T he fund shall be used to prom ote and benefit the plum bing and pipefitting industry. No portion o f such fund shall be paid to any representative of em ployees as enjoined by the Labor-M anagem ent R elations A ct o f 1947 as am ended . . „ (157) Most of the agreement provisions stayed within the requirements of s e c tion 30 2 by stipulating tnat the funds would be under unilateral employer adminis tration, or by using language so that such an implication could be clearly drawn. 21 N evertheless, unions were generally informed of the tru stees1 deliberations. In those agreements providing that the fund be jointly administered (5 of 28), promotional activities were only a part of its full scope of activities. For instance, an electrical w orkers1 agreement covering New York City suburbs e s tablished an industry stabilization board which was charged with administering the industry labor contract and a number of permitted funds (for instance, the hospitalization and welfare benefits fund and the apprenticeship and training fund), with settling disputes, and promoting harmony in labor relations. In addition, the board was to make studies and institute changes which would make it possible for the industry "to be of greater assistance to those purchasing serv ic es, p o tential purchasers, and the general p u b lic ." Unilaterally administered committees usually financed their activities by requiring regular payments, using a formula based on the hours worked by each employee: It is agreed by the parties hereto that if the em ployers desire to establish an industry advancem ent fund that a sum o f not more than 2 cents per com pensable hour shall be contributed by all individual em ployers to this fund . . . (158) The amount ranged from half a cent to 6 cents and m ore, but there was a notice able cluster at 2 cents per hour. Bilaterally administered com m ittees, on the other hand, often used a different method of financing. The National E lectrical Contractors Association for Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York (cited earlier), financed its "industry stabilization board" as well as the administrative cost's of a number of funds by employer payments of 1 percent of the gross straight-tim e payroll. Other b i lateral committees shared costs equally or set a flat fee for employers to pay: A ll expenses incurred and approved by the join t con feren ce board necessary for the perform ance of its duties shall be borne by and divided equally betw een the unions and the contractors. (159) M ill Floor C over, I n c ., 136 NLRB 769. 20 See, for instance, L ocal No. 2 Operative Plasterers vs. Paramount Plastering, Inc. 310 Fed. 2nd, 179. The U. Sc Supreme Court later denied certiorari (372N .S . 944). As originally drafted in 1947, the silen ce of the law, in effe ct, barred p ooled funds for vacations, holidays, severance pay and sim ilar benefits, as w ell as m oney earmarked to defray the cost of apprenticeship and other training programs. In 1959, all o f these wfere rem oved from the blanket ban by sp e cific inclusions. Bills have been introduced into the current Congress and into earlier sessions to win sim ilar approval for prom otion funds. None passed until H. R. 1153 passed the House on A ug. 10, 1965. Senate action was pending at the tim e o f this writing. 21 One agreem ent provided for public as w ell as em ployer trustees. 43 T he cost o f adm inistration necessary to carry out the functions of the join t industry board shall be borne by a ll em ployers . . . and shall for all purposes constitute an expense o f doing business under this agreem ent. Each em ployer shall pay the sum of $250 annually for the adm inistration of the jo in t industry board. Should the jo in t industry board find that the annual contribution . . . is inadequate . . . , it may assess all em ployers . . . an equal amount necessary to conduct its business. A ll em ployers having a payroll o f m ore than $250, 000 in the previous calendar year shall pay an additional $375 per year. (160) Although committees were largely unilaterally administered and employer financed, the act of placing them under the collective bargaining agreement signi fied that industry promotion was a matter of joint concern and cooperation. A violation of this clause constituted a violation of the agreement. Thus, a number of agreements with multipurpose funds specifically permitted the union to strike delinquent em ployers. Several of these also stipulated other penalties. In the event an em ployer fails to make the monetary contributions . . . (to the health insurance, retirem ent, and industry advancem ent funds) the union is free to take any e co n o m ic a ction against such em ployer it deem s necessary and such a ction shall not be considered a v iola tion o f this a gree ment. (161) If any individual em ployer defaults . . . , in addition to the amount due (for the health and w elfare, pension, and industry and edu cation funds) and the liquidated dam ages . . . , there shall be added to the obligations of the defaulter all reasonable expenses incurred . . . in co lle ctin g of the same including, but not lim ited to, reasonable attorney’ s and accountant’ s fees, cost o f attachm ent bond and court costs. In addition . . . , it shall not be a viola tion of any c o lle c t iv e bargaining agreem ent for the union to withdraw all journeym en and apprentice sheet m etal workers from the jo b or jobs o f a delinquent em ployer; further the em ployees so withdrawn shall continue to re ce iv e full pay up to a m axim um o f 2 weeks from said delinquent em ployer. (162) Union interests were further safeguarded by a pledge that the money would not be used for antiunion activities. . . . No part of these payments shall be used for p o litica l or antiunion activities. (163) . . . Moneys c o lle c te d (by the fund) shall not be used for lobbyin g or sponsoring any legislation detrim ental to the union nor shall any such moneys be prorated to any individual contractor during a strike or lockou t. In no instance shall any of the foregoin g funds be used for advertising or propa ganda against the union . . . (164) Legislation, Tariff, and Related Item s. O n l y 9 of t h e 450 unionmanagement cooperation clauses in the study provided for mutual aid in le g is lative, tariff, or related m atters. Six out of the nine were in construction in dustry agreem ents. Five of these were pledges, and four utilized multipurpose joint committees in carrying out legislative and tariff activities. Perhaps to a greater extent than in the area of cooperation previously mentioned, this low prevalence of form al provisions does not truly reflect the extent of joint partici pation on legislative and tariff m atters. Unions and employers often cooperate on an ad hoc basis in this area. Only 2 of the 9 agreements specifically referred to joint cooperation on tariff m atters: The (em ployers) and the (union) shall coop erate to the fullest extent to preserve the A m erica n market from danger through inroads o f foreign com petition . ( 121) 44 T h e parties recognize that there exists a serious u nem ploym ent problem am ong the workers in the scarf industry, caused by the drastically a ccelera ted imports of scarfs from foreign countries. The parties also recognize that their ob liga tion is to endeavor to correct this unem ploym ent situation. For this purpose, the parties agree to designate a specia l com m ittee on w hich there shall be represented the various segments o f the trade, for the purpose of finding every possible leg a l means to help solve this unem ploym ent problem am ong the workers em p loyed on scarfs. (165) Provisions in agreements in the construction industry dealt with le g is lative matters as they pertained to regulation of particular trades: A ll parties to this agreem ent shall cooperate on all legislative matters designed to advance the interests o f the painting industry. (166) It is agreed that the em ployer and the union w ill cooperate to bring about a higher quality o f w ork manship and protection o f the public by enactm ent of lo c a l licensing laws and /or bonding requ ire ments. (167) (d) Foster b en eficia ry legislation . T o m eet with representatives o f pu blic and qua si-pu b lic bodies or groups and w ith other groups or associations in the construction industry or a llied fields; to foster, prom ote, and urge b en eficia ry legisla tion with the State o f California relating to the plum bing and pipefitting industry; its standards, specifications, im prove te ch n o lo g ica l skills, or any other matter pertaining thereto; to acquaint the pu blic at large with the work o f the plum bing and pipefitting in dustry and to foster good public relations. (168) Limits on Cooperation. In discussing union pledges to cooperate in the introduction of technological change, it was noted that the union sought assurance that workers would not be hurt should they participate with management in bring ing innovations into the plant. Such safeguards as these are im plicit in unionmanagement cooperation provisions whether the object is the introduction of tech nological changes or the improvement of productivity or efficiency or a guarantee of a fair day’ s work. On the other hand, explicit statements, which avoid the appearance of a violation of the union’ s pledge to cooperate, may serve as a warning to management not to push its drive for efficiency beyond reasonable goals, and as a basis for a union challenge of a particular action it deems harmful. Thus, such statements may, in day-to-day operations, although not necessarily in agreement language, take the form of lim its on cooperation. In 51 of the 450 cooperation provisions, covering 283,500 w orkers, ex plicit safeguards were set forth. In six, more than one kind of safeguard was established. F orty-four of the 51 were in manufacturing industries, where m ost of the clauses relating to production problems and technological change were found. F orty-seven involved pledges to cooperate. Joint com m ittees, by their structure, have built-in institutional safeguards since representatives of both parties are likely to review policies before they are put into effect. B asically, explicit safeguards stressed that cooperation would not be forthcoming in any management action that undermined contract standards, p ar ticularly those relating to health and safety or imposed an unreasonable burden on w orkers. Twenty-one clauses specifically referred to safety and health, generally as follows: . . . the union agrees with the o b je c tiv e o f a ch ieving the highest le v e l o f em p loyee perform ance and e ffic ie n c y consistent with safety, good health and sustained effort . . . (169) * * * Consistent with the principle o f a fair day's work for a fair day's pay and consistent with the e m p loyees' w elfare in regard to safety, health and sustained effort, the union agrees to coop era te with m anagem ent in its effort to increase em p loy ee effectiveness and productivity . . . (170) 45 Another 29 contracts, usually those involving cooperation on technological change, guaranteed that w orker’ s hours, employment, and earnings would not be threatened. 22 This point was underscored by provisions which stipulated that cooperation would terminate should it conflict with specific agreements term s: . . . Nothing in this a rticle shall v oid or supersede any other section or a rticle o f this contract. (171) The parties also agreed that worker cooperation would be limited to "reason able” participation, to assistance that did not cause "unreasonable" hard ship, or did not entail acts "detrim ental" to worker interests: . . . The union agrees that it w ill cooperate in any reasonable manner with the em ployer to support its efforts to assure a fair da y’ s work on the part o f its m em bers, that it w ill com ba t absenteeism or other practices w hich m ight restrict production, elim inate waste in production, conserve materials and supplies, maintain quality o f workmanship, prevent accidents and strengthen good w ill betw een the union and the com pany. (90) The union agrees to give its a ctiv e support to prom ote the best interests of the em p loyer and to the furtherance o f sales activities. It is further stipulated that the em ployer m ay, from tim e to tim e, hold meetings o f its em ployees. Such meetings shall be held at such a tim e as not to im pose any unreasonable hardship upon the em ployees . . . (172) Members o f the Brotherhood agree . . . that they w ill cooperate with the com pany in prom oting and advancing its w elfare and prosperity providing, however, that such coop eration shall not be detrim ental to the interests of the Brotherhood or its mem bers in any manner. (173) The union recognizes the necessity for im proved production, elim in a tion o f waste o f materials and supplies, and im proved quality of workmanship and w ill cooperate in e ffectin g changes in method, product, and equipm ent to the greatest extent consistent with fair and reasonable labor practices and with the terms of this agreem ent. (174) One additional provision restricted worker participation where it might violate law or might favor one employer over another. These restrictions were included in a multiemployer agreement: The union agrees to further the interest o f the em ployer w henever it has the power to do so, but it shall not be required to do any act or thing prohibited by law, nor shall it be required to prefer any em ployer to this agreem ent over any other em ployer to this agreem ent. (175) Enforcem ent. Only 32 of the 450 agreements providing cooperation specif ically stipulated that such clauses were enforceable. Enforcement by the union has been discussed in the section dealing with construction industry advancement funds. This section describes disciplinary steps directed at the employee using the mechanism of the union-management agreement. Discipline efforts on the part of unions, through their own disciplinary procedures, or through their con trol of grievance p r o c e ssin g ,23 are of course not accounted for. 2^ See p. 34 for illustrations. See Bulletin 1425-1, pp. 17—32, op. c i t . , footn ote 3. 46 In 11 of the 32 provisions, the grievance system was intertwined in a variety of ways in the enforcement procedure. For example, in the following provision, the imposition of penalties upon a worker was contingent upon deter mination through the grievance procedure that the worker had, in fact, violated the agreement to cooperate: T he union reaffirm s its adherence to the principle o f a fair day’ s work for a fair day's pay, and agrees that the union w ill use its best efforts, both as to work and as to conduct in its perform ance. To that end, it agrees with the com pany in the establishment o f the follow in g rules and penalties for breach o f such rules when established and determ ined through grievan ce procedure . . . (176) In one agreement, failure by the union to support stated cooperative efforts could result in a company-initiated grievance: In order to effectu a te the purposes set forth in the pream ble o f this agreem ent, the union agrees that it w ill coop erate . . . and w ill aid in any manner whatsoever with the com pany's efforts to issue a full day's work on the part o f its mem bers . . . ; and in the event that the union interferes, or fails, or refuses to coop erate when ca lled upon, the union m ay be considered in default under this agreem ent and subject to the grievance procedure set forth herein. (177) The grievance procedure was to be utilized to define vague terminology on cooperation where the parties differed on meaning. It could, for example, be invoked to determine what was meant by a "standard" amount of work, "w o rk load a ssig n m e n ts," or a "reason ab le" instruction of a foreman. Em ployees shall be required to perform a standard amount o f work in an union agrees to cooperate to that end. In case of dispute regarding the required of em ployees, such subject shall be studied by a representative of pany, and if an agreem ent cannot be reached, the same shall be referred after provided. (178) >\< e fficie n t manner and the standard amount o f work the union and the c o m to arbitration as h erein >;< The parties agree that they w ill cooperate together toward the elim in a tion o f in e fficie n cy where proven to exist in any operation in the plant. This means the m aking o f normal adjustments necessary to e fficie n t operation; the elim in ation o f surplus em ployees where a surplus is proven to exist; the per form an ce o f duties on related jobs when not reasonably busy on their own jobs; the doing of a fair day's work bv all em p loyees; and the carrying out prom ptly of all reasonable instructions issued by their supervisors regarding work assignments within the department and on related jobs. Any com plaints regarding the m eaning of "reason able" shall be made through the grievan ce procedure after the in struction has been carried out. Nothing in this a rticle shall supersede any other a rticle o f this a gree ment. No e m p loyee w ill be required to perform a jo b w hich is known to be unsafe. It must be recognized, however, that a ll jobs have elem ents o f danger. (H O ) Consistent with the principle o f a fair day's work for a fair day's pay and consistent with the e m ployees' w elfare in regard to safety, health, and sustained effort, the union agrees to cooperate with m anagem ent in its effort to increase em p loyee effectiveness and productivity, provided that disputes concerning proper w orkload assignments and proper com pensation for increased productivity shall be subject to the grievan ce procedure of this contract, including arbitration . . . (170) The following provision, involving the printing p ressm en, enlisted the union in disciplining noncooperating workers. It should be noted that in this and other printing trades unions, the foreman is usually a member of the union. The union guarantees that it w ill require its members to exercise m axim um care in the operation and m aintenance o f all the m achinery and m aterial handled by them and the union also guarantees at all tim es a fu ll and satisfactory production from such m achinery and m aterial. . . . The union agrees to enforce by e ffe ctiv e disciplinary measures the obligations o f every m em ber o f the union to com p ly with orders issued by the forem en relating to the operation and care o f the presses, or to work overtim e when in his judgm ent it is necessary. (179) 47 Among the steps available to management in disciplining workers violating cooperative efforts were transfers, demotions, and, ultimately, discharge. Again, the grievance procedure safeguards the worker against the imposition of an unfair penalty: The union pledges support to the m anagem ent in elim inating or correctin g all practices that interfere with ca p a city production. Any em p loyee who fails to attain or m aintain a fair day's work, w hich shall include quality as w ell as quantity, may be transferred, dem oted, or otherwise penalized, depending upon the particular c ir cumstances o f each case. O bjections to the penalty applied m ay be subject to the grievan ce pro cedure. (180) The parties agree that they w ill cooperate to attain m ore e fficie n t production and that avoidable failure on the part of any em p loyee to m aintain a reasonable degree o f production e ffic ie n c y may, after due warning to said em p loyee, be cause for discharge , . . (181) The union's cooperation could be aimed at avoiding the discharge of an employee for inefficiency: The em ployer and union agree to cooperate in attempting to correct production in efficien cies of in dividual em ployees so as to avoid, wherever possible, the necessity for discharge because o f such production in efficien cies. (45) Appendix A. Union-Management Cooperation Not Covered by the Collective Bargaining Agreements A s noted p re viou sly , the prevalence of u nion-m anagem ent cooperation arra ng em ents is not revealed fully by a study of collective bargaining a gr e e m e n ts since such cooperation often takes place outside of the a greem en t. Four such cooperativ e arra ng em ents were studied by the Bureau to supplement the a greem ent a n a ly sis. The following section d e sc rib e s how these efforts com e into being, what they were designed to achieve, and how they o p e r ated. The studies are based upon interviews and writings by, and about, each cooperative organization. Each of the four arra ng em ents revealed certain c om m on e le m e n ts. Perhaps m o st basic in all was the realization that certain p ro b lem s were best attacked jointly and that the re su lts of this cooperation would be beneficial to both p arties. A l s o b a s i c , both parties showed a mutual re sp e c t in their relationship with each other, so m e tim e s helped by a history of past cooperation (which served to establish a foundation for new cooperative endeavors). Com m on to all four is a strong union capable of serving as an active participant in the arrangem ent. Cooperation was aided by persons dedicated to the principle of joint p a r t ic i pation, who had taken part in e a r lie r joint a rra n g e m e n ts, and who were willing to extend the effort and employ their e a rlie r experience to make the experim ent work. In the four, the parties c h ose , once their original goals had been achieved, either to end the a r r a n g e ment without prejudice to renewal of cooperation in other a r e a s at some later date, or to employ the existing structure for achieving other co m m o n goals. The Construction Industry Joint Conference On A p r il 7, 1959, building trad es unions and c o n t r a c t o r s ’ a ss o c ia t io n s establish ed the Construction Industry Joint Con ference, d escrib ed by its im partial c hairm an as fo llow s: 24 . . . as a tool where we in this industry, all the unions together, all the national contractors together, will m eet regularly and systematically to make constructive suggestions to carry on constructive programs for the purpose of promoting the construction industry in the public interest. Joint participation was not new to the construction industry. Both e m p lo y e rs and unions previously had worked together on apprenticeship training p r o g r a m s , and had been parties to the National Joint Board for the Settlement of Jurisdictio nal Disputes. The Construction Industry Joint Conference (CIJC), thus, grew out of a tradition of solving p ro blem s of mutual i n t e r e s t . 25 Included in the Conference were the presidents of construction trade unions or their rep resen ta tiv es and r e p re sen ta tiv e s of the national c o n t r a c t o r s ’ a ss o c ia t io n s . A joint a d m in istrativ e c o m m itte e , consistin g of an equal number of re p re sen ta tiv e s fr o m unions and e m ployers (eight each), a d m in is te rs p olic ie s , gathers fa c ts , and m a k es re p o rts. Both general c o n t r a c t o r s ’ and specia lty co n tr ac to rs' a s s oc iation s are equally rep resen ted . Its Impartial Chairman since its origin is P r o f e s s o r John Dunlop of H a rv ar d , who served in a sim ila r capacity for the National Joint Board for the Settlement of Jurisdictio nal Disputes. The CIJC anticipates that lo c a litie s will ultim ately e stablish their own c o n fer en c e s. All co sts of the OJC are shared equally by union and em ployer m em bers. Am on g the C o n fe r e n c e ’ s objectives are the promotion of the industry, im p rovem en t of the in dustry's skill le v e ls , and encouragement of the voluntary settlement of disputes (not c overed by other p ro ce d u re s) before work stoppages occur. The CIJC has also served Ironworker, November 1963, p. 12. 25 See, the Ironworker, op. c it., pp. 52—53 j and the Official Record of the International Union of Operating Engineers, April 1960 to April 1964, p. 315. 48 49 as the in dustry's spokesman— but only on is s u e s where unions and a ssoc iation s concur— before a variety of F e d e r a l adm inistrative agencies including, for instance, the Departments of Defense and Labor and the Internal Revenue S e rv ic e. Prom oting the w elfare of the industry has involved b a s ic a lly an effort "to p r e s e r v e and to promote the contract s y s t e m " as well as to im p rove "p e r fo r m a n c e and productivity by contractor and w o r k e r s . " 26 In particular, it was planned that the C U C would "p rovide for the need to present m o r e effectively to private owners and government agencies the advantages of the contract s y s te m , " i. e. , to in form p rospective buyers of their s e r v ic e s , that construction and related work could be done m o s t e c onom ically by construction co n tr ac to rs. Towards this end theCIJC has drawn up two specia l brochures and has cooperatively developed a modified collective bargaining agreem ent— the provisions of which are l e s s stringent and costly to the contractor— applicable to kinds of work the co ntractors are seeking to win. This is a continuing C U C p ro g r a m . W here the Conference has learned that much industrial construction is planned within a given area, it has sent in team s to explain the advantages of contract construction. The Conference has also requested special Labor Department studies of manpower requirem ents and training needs for a 1 0 -y e a r period. The re su lts w ere then d issem in ated among the C IJ C 's m e m b e r s h ip . Explained Impartial Chairm an Dunlop: 27 . . . I happen to believe that in the years 1960—70 this industry will need considerably more skilled workers than it now has, and also that the skills of the existing journeymen w ill need to be upgraded, retrained, and kept up to date. In the modern world you must keep up with new change? in your industry or you're in trouble. This applies to unions, it applies to the contractors, and it applies to individual journeymen. The Conference has provided a continuing forum for the d isc u ssio n of industry and la b o r -m a n a g e m e n t p r o b le m s . While it has add ressed itself to is s u e s causing work stoppages in particular a re a s , such as the m i s s i l e sites construction p ro g ra m , it has not created any new settlement m achinery which might conflict with existing p roced u res of the National Joint Board. Again, P r o f e s s o r Dunlop explained: 28 . . . This is an area where some branches of the industry already have w ell-established methods, while other branches do not. We seek by voluntary methods to reduce the extent of work stoppages, to encourage local settlements and perhaps to develop where we have discussed it in detail procedures where disputes cannot be settled locally may be handled on a national basis between people familiar with the collective bargaining practices in the industry. The C U C has also voiced industry views on proposed F e d e r a l Government procedures concerning equal employm ent opportunities. The Conference today is a going concern. As one m e m b e r explained, advantages to joint participation, e sp ecially when dealing with F e d e r a l agencies: 29 there are There are many occasions when the combined joint approach, or the coordinated separate approach of labor and management to governmental agencies is vastly more effective than the isolated and uncoordinated approach of either by itself . . . National Board of the Cloak and Suit Industry In 1935, the National Cloak and Suit Industry R e c o v e ry Board was established by e m p lo y e rs and the L a d i e s 1 Garment W o r k e r s ' Union. It was "v irtu a lly a lineal d escendant" of an e a rlie r authority that had adm inistered the in d ustry's code of fair competition under the National R e c o v e ry Adm inistration, "op erating with much the sam e p erson n el. " Both the e a rlie r code authority and the R e co v e ry Board were designed to p r e s e r v e fair trade and e m ployment standards and to avoid a return to what one o b s e r v e r te rm e d an e a rlie r period of "e c o n o m ic l a w l e s s n e s s . " The R e c o v e ry Board was created as a nonprofit corporation. Its existence was a ssu re d by two cla u ses in the collective bargaining agreem ent, one requiring e m p lo ye rs to join the Board and to abide by its constitution, b y - l a w s , rules and regulations, and the 26 "Construction Industry Joint Conference Plan, " Ironworker op. cit. , p. 54. 27 Ironworker, op. cit. , p. 12. 28 ibid----- Official Record of the IUOE, op. cit. , p. 322. 50 regulation s, and the second agreein g that all g arm en ts produced under the agree m e n t would bear the B o a rd 's label. The Board c la im s m o r e than 90 percent of all m anu factu rers of w o m e n ’ s and ch ild re n 's cloak and su its, as m e m b e r s . Its broad spectrum of activities are financed by the sale of labels to e m p lo y e r s . Since the IL GW U has d eterm ined to promote its own label as well, an arrangem ent has been worked out for joint la b e ls , i. e. , each o rg an iza tio n ’ s label is sewn to the other and then sewn to the garm en t, in accordance with the p reviou sly cited collective bargaining a g r e e ment. This constitutes the full extent to which the Board is governed by the c o llective b a r gaining contract. A l l ru le s, regulations, and activities are determ ined by the Board and are not included in the labor contract. A l l d ecisions are made by an executive board which includes both em p loyer and union re p re sen ta tiv e s. Union board m e m b e r s are a m in o rity , and thus can affect the outcome of a vote only if there is a split among e m p lo yer re p re sen ta tiv e s . E m p loy e r m e m b e r s are about evenly divided between those fr o m New Y ork City and those whose plants are outside New Y ork. Executive s e c r e ta r y Wilbur Daniels su p e rv is e s a ctivities in offices in Boston, New Y o r k , Philadelphia, B a ltim o r e , Cleveland, Chicago, St. L ou is, Kansas City, L os A n g e le s , S a n , F r a n c i s c o , and Portland, O re. M o st are o n e -m a n o ffic e s . When it was originally e stablish ed , the Board was concerned p rim a rily with sta b il izing the industry. The union its e lf had been trying for y e a r s prior to the National Industrial R e c o v e ry Act to introduce som e order into the industry, since the jo b b e r -c o n tr a c to r s y s te m , with its inherent in se c u ritie s for the contractor, had affected d etrim entally the status of w o r k e r s ' wages and working conditions. Thus, the Board originally focused on continuing the code of fa ir trade p ra ctic e s introduced under the NIRA and on working out the cloak and suit in dustry's relations with r e ta ile r s . With these in mind, the Board operated through a string of compliance c o m m itte e s . Its F air T ra d e s P r a c tic e s C o m m itte e , for e x am p le , a t tempted to educate Board m e m b e r s to o b se rv e ethical business standards and, failing that, would bring grievances before a grievance co m m itte e . Its Shopping Bureau would examine g arm en ts on the p r e m is e s of re ta ile r s for c o m p l i ance with label re q u ire m e n ts and to determine whether or not the g a r m e n t's quality c o r r e sponded with advertised c la im s and with the grade settled upon for piece ra te s. O c c a sio n a lly , g arm en ts would be purchased off retail racks so that they could be submitted to a detailed inspection to determin e actual worth. In an attempt to rectify conditions causing returns fr o m r e t a ile r s , much attention was paid to this p ro b lem , a cru cial one in the industry. A s one of its p r im a ry r e s p o n s ib ilitie s , the Board compiled information and data on the cloak and' suit industry. F o r this function, the Board used accountants and in vestigators whose s e r v ic e s it shared with the im partial chairm an for the industry. The Board also maintained a legal and legislative co m m ittee which, accordin g to one o b s e r v e r , "f o llo w s the fa m ilia r trade a s s o c ia tio n pattern of supporting legislation favorable to the trade and d i s couraging proposed m e a s u r e s deem ed unfavorable. " 0 Industry r e s e a r c h and le g isla tive m a tte rs continue to occupy the Board today, but other o bjectives are now demanding in c re ase d attention. G rea ter em p hasis has been placed on production and training p r o b le m s , and on industry promotion and consum er education. In 1963, the Board changed its name to the National Board of the Cloak and Suit Industry, since it no longer functioned as a " r e c o v e r y " board regulating the industry. Continuity re m a in s in the d ecision of both labor and management to c a r r y on with their cooperative policy in m a tte rs where both stand to benefit. The E c o n om ic s of Distribution Foundation, Inc. In 1955, e m p lo y e r s in the baking industry and the International Brotherhood of T e a m ste rs fo rm e d the E c o n o m ic s of Distribution Foundation, Inc. The m ove was taken with some urgency since conditions within the industry were changing rapidly. In particular, the growth of su perm ark ets and the subsequent construction by chain su pe rm a rk e ts of their own b ak e rie s ^ Robinson, Dwight, Collective Bargaining and Market Control in the New York Coat and Suit Industry, New York, 1949, Columbia University Press, pp. 164-165. 51 put the wholesale baking industry at a competitive disadvantage. The costs of producing baked goods were about the same for both, but the costs of distributing the goods were sufficiently lower for chain supermarkets so that their private label items could sell sub stantially below competitive brand name items. Independent stores, independent super markets, and wholesale bakers felt the pinch of lost volume as the chains1 share of the baked goods market grew. The Foundation^ first objective was to study the distribution system in the baking industry and suggest ways of reducing inefficiency and costs. The Foundation originally planned to expand its activities into other food producing industries which were similarly confronted with chain supermarket operations, and eventually, broaden its scope to include transportation in general. However, these plans have not been realized. The Foundation is financed on a membership basis. Each company and the Inter national Brotherhood of Teamsters pay equal amounts or ' dues'' annually to support the organization’s activities. Thus, in total, there is a larger annual contribution from employers than from the Teamsters. Officers of the Foundation are drawn from the union and the industry, in addition the public has one representative. David Kaplan, former chief economist of the Teamsters, is president. There are two vice-presidents, one from the union and one from the employers. Theodore W. Kheel, a prominent labor arbitrator and mediator, acts as secretary and general counsel. These officers and other members, also drawn from the industry and the union, constitute the board of directors which meets annually. The Foundation^ activities have involved research grants to universities as well as staff studies. For example, it conducted an extensive seminar on distribution economics. Its manifold activites have resulted in a series of reports, focusing particularly on distri bution methods and comparative costs in sales as against drop delivery. The findings were subsequently forwarded to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and to employers in the industry. In seeking to produce a more efficient distribution system for baked goods, the Foundation offered employers and union the opportunity to discuss freely their problems away from the pressures and emotions of the bargaining table. The purpose of these meetings was characterized by a Foundation spokesman as follows: 31 The Foundation does not provide the solutions. It aids the decision-making parties, management and labor, to seek out the solutions for themselves in an atmosphere o f reasonableness and cooperation. The primary objective o f the Foundation is to guide labor and management into programs that increase the productivity of the distribution services. We feel that in this way we can make a contribution not only in improving management and labor relations, but also towards more rapid increases in standards of living. For with income, as with goods, operators and men cannot share what has not been produced. These seminars are conducted periodically both at national and regional levels. They involve top management of the baking industry, who ordinarily would not be involved in col lective bargaining, as well as intermediate managers (who have direct collective bargaining responsibilities) and Teamsters officials. The seminars are confidential and no minutes are taken. Both management and union concluded that the seminars would be most effective if the participants knew that their statements would not be used against them in subsequent negotiations. Thus, the Economics of Distribution Foundation, Inc. , in effect, conducts its business in the same way as the later-developed human relations committee in the primary metals industry. In the latter, this technique was adapted to a broad spectrum of labormanagement problems. In an interview, Foundation President Kaplan assessed the organization as having already served its purpose successfully in that the parties have introduced and experimented with changes in distribution that have helped the baking industry to recapture some of the lost volume. These changes have involved both the method of distribution and the system of compensation. Drop deliveries and modified drop deliveries have been adopted by some 31 Kaplan, David, "Baking Distribution— A New Look, " mimeographed paper, unknown, p. 7. Economics o f Distribution Foundation, date 52 companies. In many cases, high commission rates for driver - salesmen have been modified. According to Mr. Kaplan, however, earnings have not diminished. In fact, they have in creased as lost volume has been regained. The American Foundation on Automation and Employment, Inc. Early in 1962, John Snyder, president of U.S. Industries, Inc. , and A1 Hayes, then president of the International Association of Machinists (AFL-CIO), jointly announced the formation of the American Foundation of Automation and Employment, Inc. The foundation was the result of their joint concern with the human problems generated by the introduction of automated equipment into manufacturing plants. Said Mr. Snyder: 32 . . . Those companies actively engaged in the production of automation equipment must also hasten to shoulder their proper share o f the clear responsibilites imposed on us all by our technological achievements in this field . . . Positive, affirmative steps by the makers of machines must be taken now to preserve the human values which are bound up in today's changing times . . . Both U.S. Industries and the Machinists had built up 6 years of harmonious co operation in another foundation that is still in existence. The earlier group, the Foundation on Employee Health, Medical Care, and Welfare, Inc., was formed by Mr. Snyder and Mr. Hayes in 1956 when congressional investigations revealed corruption and undesirable influences in the administration of certain health and welfare funds and thus the need for impartial guidance in handling these complex matters. The Foundation’ s objective was "to obtain the greatest value for (management and labor's) collectively bargained health and welfare benefits. " In pursuit of this end, it contracted out research projects to univer sities and consultants, performed some research on its own, and issued a number of publi cations on health and welfare costs and administration and on the merits of various types of health insurance. At the time of this study, this foundation functioned only as a distributor of its publications; it believed that it had already served its major purpose and had no plans to begin new research projects. The co-chairmen, as in the predecessor foundation, were Mr. Snyder and Mr. Hayes, and Theodore Kheel was secretary-treasurer. Mr. Kheel also held membership in the earlier foundation. The Foundation's Board of Directors included additional representatives from U.S. Industries and IAM as well as a number of public figures drawn from unions, universities, municipal and Federal Government, and business. It derives its financial support from a royalty or "dues" based on the sale of U.S. Industries equipment. In practice, the greatest emphasis of the Foundation's activities has been placed upon conferences, although some research grants were made. Among the study grants was one to Cornell University to study the problems of retraining adults displaced by automation, and to Robben W. Fleming and Murray Edelman of the University of Illinois to study the politics of wage-price decisions in four countries. The conferences since 1962 have covered a wide range of interrelated topics. The first, held in London in 1962, was designed to determine the status of research of automation and technological change problems in a wide number of participating countries. Subsequent conferences dealt with problems of automation and technological change; automation and public welfare; automation, education and collective bargaining; training and retraining; employment problems of automation and advanced technology, and industrial opportunities and jobs in New York City. These conferences and research grants have resulted in a series of publications, some published by the foundation and others published under different auspices. At the time of this study, the future of the Foundation had been clouded by the death of John Snyder. Its staff and members of its Board felt that the Foundation still served a useful purpose. They hoped that it would continue under USI—IAM sponsorship, or if not, under the sponsorship of other organizations that also have a stake in resolving these problems. U.S. Industries, in recognition of its international activities, in late 1962 established a similar foundation in England, called the Foundation on Automation and Employment, Ltd. Appendix B. Selected Management Rights Provisions To illustrate how the various parts of management rights clauses fit together, this appendix reproduces several provisions in their entirety. These include general as well as enumerated statements, and examples of residual rights provisions. From the agreement between A I R T E M P DI VI SI ON OF T H E C H R Y S L E R C O R P O R A T I O N AND T H E I N T E R N A T I O N A L UNI ON OF E L E C T R I C A L WORKERS (expiration date: October 1967) The corporation has the exclusive right to manage its plants and offices and direct its affairs and working forces subject only to such regulations and restrictions governing the exercise of these rights as are expressly provided in this agreement. From the agreement between T H E G E N E R A L T I R E AND R U B B E R C OMPA N Y AND T H E U N I T E D R U B B E R WORKERS OF A ME R I C A (expiration date: May 1967) Article V Management Clause Management of the business, operation of the plant, direction of the working force, and the authority to execute all the various duties, functions, and responsibilities in connection therewith is vested in the company. The exercise of such duties, functions, and respon sibilities shall not conflict with this agreement or any local supplements thereto. From the agreement between T H E MAGNA C O P P E R C OM P A N Y AND T H E I N T E R N A T I O N A L UNI ON OF MI NE, M I L L AND S M E L T E R WORKERS (expiration date: July 1967) 4-1 The company retains and shall maintain and exercise all managerial authority and prerogatives, subject only to the express terms and provisions of this agreement. 4-2 Nothing in this agreement shall be interpreted as interfering in any way with the company's right to alter, rearrange, or change, extend, limit, or curtail its operations or any part thereof, or to shut down completely, whatever may be the effect upon employment, when in its sole discretion it may deem it advisable to do all or any of said things when such action is not in conflict with the provisions of this agreement. Nothing in this agreement shall be construed so as to deprive the union of any rights under existing laws. 53 54 From the agreement between M A G N A V O X C OMPA N Y AND T H E I N T E R N A T I O N A L UNI ON OF E L E C T R I C A L WORKERS ( I U E ) (expiration date: June 1968) The right to hire, layoff, and discharge employees for just and lawful cause; and the management, disposition, and number of working force, the right to contract out work, the right to make reasonable assignments of jobs; to determine the products to be manufactured, processed, or handled by the employee; to establish production schedules, methods, proc esses, and means and ends; to determine its general business practice and policy; to open new units, assembly lines, departments, and operations, and to terminate or close them; to make promotions to supervisory or executive positions; to increase or decrease the working force are among the sole prerogatives of the company; provided, however, that this section will not be used to discriminate against the union and membership thereof and also this section will not in any way abrogate or interfere with the employee's rights under the terms of this agreement, including the use of the grievance and arbitration procedure. From the agreement between L E V E R B R O T H E R S C OM P A N Y AND T H E I N T E R N A T I O N A L C H E M I C A L WORKERS UNION (expiration date: March 1966) 25. (C) All the functions, powers or authority which the company has not specifically abridged, delegated, or modified by this agreement will be recognized by the union as being retained by the company. 26. (D) The union recognizes that there are functions, powers, and authorities belonging solely to the company, prominent among which, but by no means wholly inclusive, are the functions of introducing new or improved production methods or equipment, deciding the number and location of plants, the nature of equipment or machinery, the products to be manufactured, the methods and processes of manufacturing, the scheduling of production, the method of training employees, the designing and engineering of products and the control of raw materials, as well as the assignment of work to outside contractors after due con sideration by the company to the interests of regular employees. Nothing in this para graph shall be construed as preventing a local union and local management from entering into a local mutual arrangement to provide that qualified hourly employees, if available, shall normally be used to train other hourly employees on presently established jobs; how ever, in the event such an arrangement is entered into, it shall in no way be considered a relinquishment of management rights as outlined herein. 27. (E) Subject to the provisions of this agreement including local supplementary agreements there shall be no interference with the functions of the company as outlined in the following subparagraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5): 28. (1) To make or change such reasonable rules and regulations as it may de necessary and proper to the conduct of its business, with the understanding that reason ableness is an arbitrable question. 29. (2) To permanently eliminate, change, or consolidate jobs, sections, departmen or divisions. In the case of eliminations or consolidations resulting from reduced production, reduced work, or new machines, processes or methods, the company shall have the right to effectuate the consolidation, and the employees will comply with the company's require ments, subject to 1 week's advance notice by the company. Thereafter the reasonableness of the rate and job content shall be subject to grievance and arbitration machinery. It is understood, however, that in those cases where jobs are consolidated and a reduced number of employees are asked to increase their individual efforts in order to perform substantially the same amount of work formerly done by a larger number of employees, then the reason ableness of the physical workload shall be subject to grievance and arbitration machinery before the consolidation is effected. It is further understood that the procedure set forth in 55 the preceding sentence does not apply unless the new physical workload is in excess of that which has been performed over an extended period of time by an employee in a job classi fication similar to the jobs consolidated; however, in the absence of any such comparison, the union may, if it so desires, refer the reasonableness of the physical workload to arbi tration before the consolidation is effected. 30. (3) To operate one or more departments, jobs, sections, or divisions while oth are closed down; and to control absolutely the volume of its production and the allocation of work to departments, and jobs, as well as to determine the amount of and the occasions for overtime work. 31. (4) To control the number of employees required from time to time; and, subject to local seniority provisions, to control the assignment of work. 32. (5) To permit personnel outside of the bargaining unit to perform tasks of experimental, testing or research nature. Ordinary maintenance in connection with exper imental, testing or research work shall be done by the mechanical department. 33. Any violation by any party to the agreement of any of the provisions of this mutual security clause shall be deemed to go to the essence of the agreement. From the agreement between A M E R I C A N MOTORS C O R P O R A T I O N AND T H E I N T E R N A T I O N A L U N I ON , U N I T E D A U T O M O B I L E , A E R OS P A C E AND A G R I C U L T U R A L I M P L E M E N T WORKERS OF A MER I C A (expiration date: October 1967) Article I (A) Management Rights Clause The parties to this agreement recognize that they are engaged in a common endeavor in which each of them has separate and distinct responsibilities which both of them are obligated to meet in a manner consistent with their mutual overriding responsibility to the community as a whole. The union recognizes and respects the obligation of management to obtain for the company's stockholders a reasonable return on their investment and to assure the continued growth and prosperity of the company. The company recognizes and respects the obligation of the union to help its members to protect and advance their welfare and to obtain for themselves and their families a fair share of the fruits of their labor. Both parties recog nize that they can best fulfill their separate obligations to stockholders and employees, respectively, by conducting their relations with each other on a cooperative basis that will make it possible to offer consumers a growing volume of high quality products at reason able prices. To achieve these ends, each party recognizes functions of the other. that it must respect the proper The union recognizes the right of management to maximum freedom to manage consistent with due regard for the welfare and interests of the employees. Specifically, the union agrees, in order to clarify its recognition of management functions belonging exclusively to the company, not to request the company to bargain with respect to the following: 1. Any change or modification of management rights clauses contained in the sever working agreements with the respective local unions. 56 2. The right to determine the products to be manufactured, their design and engi neering, and the research thereon. 3. The right to determine all methods of selling, marketing, and advertising pro ducts, including pricing of products. 4. The right to make all financial decisions including but not limited to the adminis tration and control of capital, distribution of profits and dividends, mortgaging of properties, purchase and sale of securities, and the benefits and compensation of nonunion represented personnel, the financing and borrowing of capital and the merger, reorganization or dis solution of the corporation, together with the right to maintain the corporation’s financial books and records in confidence. This right includes the determination of general accounting pro cedures, particularly the internal accounting necessary to make reports to the owners of the business and to government bodies requiring financial reports. 5. The right to determine the management organization of each producing or distrib uting unit and the selection of employees for promotion to supervisory and other managerial positions. The company agrees, in order to clarify its recognition of functions belonging exclusively to the union, not to request the union to bargain with respect to any matter involving the internal affairs, procedures or practices of the union, including, but without limitations, such matters as the amount or manner of levying initiation fees, dues, assess ments and fines, election or appointment of union officers, stewards, committeemen, mem bers of union committees or union representatives, delegates to conventions or other union functions, the individuals holding such positions, procedures for formulation of demands, for deciding upon strike action or other concerted action, and for ratification of agreements; provided, however, that this shall not preclude the company from bringing to the attention of, and discussing with, the union any matter which has bearing on relations between them. None of the foregoing shall be deemed to modify or limit any right secured to either the company or the union in the national economic agreement or the several local working agreements. The union hereby agrees to relieve the company from any obligation to bargain or negotiate with respect to any of the matters mentioned in the preceding paragraphs as matters with respect to which it will not request the company to bargain. The company recognizes, however, that decisions made pursuant to the exercise of the management rights set forth above may have impact upon employees. The company, therefore, recognizes that it is a proper function and a right of the union to bargain, and the company agrees that it will discuss and bargain in good faith with the union at the latter’s request, with respect to the impact of such decisions upon wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment or upon the convenience, welfare, interests, health, safety, security and dignity of employees and their families. The company will continue its past practice of advising and consulting with the union in advance of the effectuation of decisions having an impact upon such matters. The company further agrees that it will refrain from assigning to unrepresented employees operations or functions presently performed by repre sented employees at the same location. Insistence by the company upon full compliance with this agreement and with the management rights clauses in the said several working agreements shall not be an objective of, or reason, or cause for any strike, slowdown, work stoppage, walkout, picketing, or other exercise of force or threat thereof by the union or any of its members; nor shall insistence by the union upon full compliance with this agreement and the provisions of the national economic agreement or the several local working agreements be an objective of, or reason, or cause for any lockout, or punitive, discriminatory or disciplinary action or other exercise of force or threat against any employee; provided, however, that nothing in this paragraph shall be deemed to modify or limit any right secured to either the company or the union in such agreements. This management rights clause shall remain in full force and effect, as long as the progress sharing plan as set forth herein or as hereafter amended shall not have been terminated. Appendix C. Selected Union-Management Cooperation Provisions This appendix illustrates how the various parts of union-management cooperation fit together, in their entirety. These include pledges and joint committees concerned with co operation on a variety of production and promotion matters. From the agreement between T H E C A M P B E L L SOUP C O M P A N Y AND T H E I N T E R N A T I O N A L B R O T H E R H O O D OF T E A MS T E R S (expiration date: May 1966) Recognizing that the road to better working conditions and wages lies in increasing the profits of the company, and recognizing that the happiness and security of its working force is of great importance to an efficient and profitable operation, the union and the com pany, on behalf of the employees and the management staff, jointly pledge to do everything within their power to: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Carry out the principles above expressed. Improve the products of the company. Improve the efficiency of manufacturing. Conduct themselves individually and collectively as to reflect favorably on the business, and improve the public standing of the company and the union. Promote the sale of the company’ s products through grocery stores to the general public. From the agreement between P A C I F I C C O L U M B I A MI L L S AND T H E T E X T I L E WORKERS UNI ON OF A M E R I C A (expiration date: June 1968) The union recognizes the responsibilities imposed upon it as the exclusive bargaining agent of the employees, and realizes that in order to provide maximum opportunities for continuing employment, good working conditions, and good wages, the employer must be in a strong market position, which means it must produce efficiently and at the lowest possible costs consistent with fair labor standards. The union, through its bargaining agency, as sumes responsibility for cooperating in the attainment of these goals. The union, therefore, agrees that it will cooperate with the employer and support its efforts to assure a full day’ s work on the part of its members; that it actively will combat absenteeism and any other practices which restrict production. It further agrees that it will support the employer in its efforts to improve production, eliminate waste in production; conserve materials and supplies; improve the quality of workmanship; prevent accidents, and strengthen good will between the employer, the employees, the consumer, the union, and the public. From the agreement between A L C O P R O D U C T S , I N C . , AND T H E U N I T E D S T E E L W O R K E R S OF A ME R I C A (expiration date: March 1966) It is the further intent of the parties to secure and sustain maximum productivity per employee during the term of this agreement. In return for wages paid by the company and consistent with the principle of a fair day's work for a fair day’s pay, the union re affirms its agreement with the objective of achieving the highest level of employees perform ance and efficiency consistent with job evaluation, safety, good health and sustained effort, and agrees that the union, its agents and its members will not take, authorize, or condone any action which interferes with the attainment of such objective. 57 58 From the agreement between ARMOUR AND COMPANY AND THE PACKINGHOUSE, FOOD AND AL L I ED WORKERS (expiration date: August 1967) Automation Fund It is recognized that the meatpacking industry is undergoing significant changes in methods of production, processing, marketing, and distribution. Armour's modernization program is vital to its ability to compete and grow successfully, thus providing a reasonable return on capital invested in the enterprise and providing the assurance of continued em ployment for the employees under fair standards of wages, benefits, and working conditions. Jobs are directly dependent upon making Armour products desirable to present and future customers from the viewpoint of quality and price. Mechanization and new methods to promote operating and distributing efficiencies affect the number of employees required and the manner in which they perform their work. Technological improvement may result in the need for developing new skills and the acquir ing of new knowledge by the employees. In addition, problems are created for employees affected by these changes that require the joint consideration of the company and the unions. The company and the unions have in this and in past agreements provided benefits to soften the effect of some of these changes where employees are laid off or terminated. However, it is recognized that these problems require continued study to promote employ ment opportunities for employees affected by the introduction of more efficient methods and technological changes. The company, therefore, agrees with the unions to continue the automation fund established on September 1, 1959. The automation fund shall continue to be administered by a committee of nine, composed of four representatives of management and two represen tatives selected by each of the two unions, and an impartial chairman selected by mutual agreement of the parties. The management and the unions shall each pay for the expenses of their respective representatives on the committee. The fees and expenses of the impartial chairman shall be paid by the fund. The committee is also authorized to utilize the fund for the purpose of studying the problems resulting from the modernization program, and making recommendations for their solution, promoting employment opportunities within the company for those employees affected, training qualified employees in the knowledge and skill required to perform new and changed jobs so that the present employees may be utilized for this purpose to the greatest extent possible, and providing allowances towards moving expenses for employees who transfer from one plant to another of the company's plants in accordance with the pro cedures provided in article XXIII. It is agreed, however, that the fund shall not be used to increase present separation pay benefits or T .A . P. benefits. The committee should also continue to consider other programs and methods that might be employed to promote continued employment opportunities for those affected. Except as explicitly provided otherwise below, the findings and recommendations of the committee shall not be binding upon the parties but shall be made to the company and to the unions for their further consideration. In addition, the committee shall make determinations and formulate procedures, under the terms of the master agreement as follows: 59 First, in accordance with section 23. 1 (a), describe the form, formulate the procedures and determine the extent in which the company shall make seniority list information available to the unions. Second, in accordance with section 23.1 (b), determine the number of calendar days within which an employee shall file a written request of transfer to another plant. Third, in accordance with section 23. 1 (d) (ii), define a proper offer of transfer and formulate rules and procedures providing for termination of an employee’ s right of transfer on refusal of such an offer of transfer. Fourth, in accordance with section 23.1 (e), formulate rules for limiting the number of transfers into any bargaining unit in any one year. Fifth, in accordance with section 24. 1 of article XXIV-B define a replace ment plant. Up to $50,000 each contract year shall be made available from money in the auto mation fund as of the effective date of this agreement for the expenses of the automation fund committee and studies authorized by that committee. The balance of the money in the fund as of the effective date of this agreement shall be made available for relocation costs of employees transferred as provided under this agreement and for whatever retraining pro grams may be determined. The company shall make no further contributions to the auto mation funds. From the agreement between T H E SAN JOAQUI N V A L L E Y H O T E L , R E S T A U R A N T AND T A V E R N A S S O C I AT I ON , I NC. , AND T H E H O T E L AND R E S T A U R A N T WORKERS (expiration date: August 1967) Immediately upon the signing of this agreement, a labor-management committee shall be established consisting of three representatives of the San Joaquin Valley Hotel, Restaurant and Tavern Association, Inc. , and the Local Joint Board. Said committee shall hold regular meetings sometime during the third week of the odd numbered months. They shall determine problems of mutual concern to the parties not specifically covered by the terms of the agreement. The purpose of the committee shall be to promote and to per petuate harmonious relations to study and recommend ways and means of promoting the economic welfare of the employers and the members of the union. This committee shall not supersede the functions of the adjustment board as set forth (in this agreement) and this committee shall have no authority to negotiate a new agreement or amend this agreement. From the agreement between T H E E M P I R E S T A T E C L O T H , H A T AND CA P M A N U F A C T U R E R S ASSOCI ATI ON AND T H E U N I T E D H A T T E R S , C A P AND M I L L I N A R Y WORKERS (expiration date: June 1966) 41. Each employer agrees to contribute to a fund heretofore established by the National Cap and Cloth Hat Institute, Inc. , a sum equal to 1 percent of the gross payrolls of all its employees covered by this agreement. The contributions to the said fund shall be used for the purpose of promoting the consumption of caps and cloth hats and for the general welfare of the industry. Failure of an employer to make the contributions provided herein shall constitute a breach of this agreement which may be remedied in the same manner as any other dispute, claim, or controversy arising under the agreement. 60 From the agreement between T H E P L U M B I N G AND H E A T I N G C O N T R A C T O R S C O V E R I N G SAN F R A N C I S C O , M A R I N , SONOMA AND M E N D O C I N O C O U N T I E S , C A L I F O R N I A AND T H E U N I T E D ASSOCI ATI ON OF J O U R N E Y M E N AND A P P R E N T I C E S OF T H E P L U M B I N G AND P I P E F I T T I N G I N D U S T R Y (expiration date: March 1966) Promotion Fund Each employer shall pay to a promotion trust the sum of 5 cents per hour from July 1, 1962 to June 30, 1963; 8 cents per hour from July 1, 1963 to June 30, 1964; and 10 cents per hour from July 1, 1964 to June 30, 1965 and 14 cents per hour from July 1, 1965 to March 31, 1966, all dates inclusive. Said trust shall be administered by a board of trustees composed of employer representatives and public representatives. The fund shall be used to promote and benefit the plumbing and pipefitting industry. No portion of such fund shall be paid to any representative of employees as enjoined by the LaborManagement Relations Act of 1947, as amended. No portion of such fund shall be used for purposes inimical or opposed to the interests of the union or its members. The union may obtain a temporary restraining order and injunction from a court of competent jurisdiction to prevent use of fund moneys for purposes which, in the union’ s opinion, would be inimical or opposed to such interests. Each employer hereby agrees to be bound by the trust agreement for said fund as is fully set forth herein, and by any duly adopted amendments thereto. If a court of competent jurisdiction should decree that the provisions of this section are invalid, or that the sums provided for herein are not collectible by law, then the assets of said trust, after payment of remaining lawful obligations, shall be transferred to such fringe benefit fund as shall be designated by the union; and all sums required by this agree ment to be paid to the promotion fund shall instead be paid to such other trust or fund for the duration of this agreement. Neither the union, nor any of its representatives or members, shall have any re sponsibility for any action or inaction of the trustees, or the manner in which the fund is administered. Appendix D. Identification of Clauses Employer and union 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Ingersoll-Rand Co. Electrical, International (IUE). Western Electric Co. , Inc. Communications (CWA). General Electric Co. United Electrical Workers (UE) (ind. ). Michigan Linen Supply. Laundry, Dry Cleaning and Dye House Workers (LWIU) (Ind.). Midtown Realty Owners Association. Building Service (BSE). ACF Industries. Machinists (IAM). Ohio Bell Telephone Co. Communications (CWA). Sherwin-Williams Co. Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers (OCAW). J. F. McElwain Co. New Hampshire Shoe Workers (ind.). General Motors Corp. Auto Workers (UAW). International Harvester Co. Federal Labor Union (FLU). Chicago Lighting Equipment Manufacturers As sociation. Electrical, Brotherhood (IBEW). Jewel Tea Co. , Inc. United Retail Workers Union (ind. ). Associated Laundry Owners. Laundry, Dry Cleaning and Dye House Workers (LWIU) (ind.). Green Shoe Manufacturing Co. Shoe Workers (BSW). Hercules-Powder Co. Chemical (ICW). United States Steel Corp.— Production Division. Steelworkers (USA) . Coleman Co. , Inc. District 50—Mine Workers (UMW—50) (ind.). Schiffli Lace and Embroidery Manufacturers As sociation. United Textile Workers (UTWA). Lever Brothers. Chemical (ICW). American Motors Corp. Auto Workers (UAW). 61 Expiration date July 1966 September 1966 October 1966 April 1967 F ebruary 1966 July 1968 September 1966 June 1967 March 1965 September 1967 September 1967 August 1967 January 1965 March 1964 December 1966 March 1966 April 1965 November 1967 April 1965 March 1966 October 1967 Employer and union zz Z3 Z4 Z5 Z6 Z7 Z8 29 30 31 3Z 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 4Z 43 44 45 46 47 48 Olin-Mathieson Chemical. District 50—Mine Workers (UM W -50) (ind. ). Ohio Edison Co. Utility (UWU). General Telephone Co. of California. Communications (CWA). P. Lorillard Co. (Louisville Plant) Tobacco Workers (TWIU). Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co. Team sters (TCWH) (Ind.) R. C. Mahon Co. Steelworkers (USA). Associated Cleaning Plant Owners. Laundry, Dry Cleaning and Dye House Workers (LWIU) (ind.). B. F . Goodrich C o .— Footwear Division Federal Labor Union (FLU). Union Oil Company of California Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers (OCAW). Kroger C o .— Wyatt Food Stores Division. Retail Clerks (RCIA). Munsingwear, Inc. Textile Workers Union (TW UA). Sperry Rand C o rp .— Office Machine Division Machinists (IAM). Ametek, In c .— U .S . Gauge Division. Machinists (IAM). General Refractories Co. Brick and Clay Workers (UBCW). L ily-T u lip Cup Corp. Printing P ressm en (IPPA). Wholesale Grocers Association. T eam sters (TCWH) (ind.). Robertshaw-Fulton Controls Co. Steelworkers (USA). The F air. Retail Clerks (RCIA). Magnavox Co. Allied Industrial Workers (AIW). Mergenthaler Linotype C o .— Eltra Division Auto W orkers (UAW). Erwin M ills, Inc. United Textile Workers (UTWA). Cameron Iron Works, Inc. Machinist (IAM). Montefiore Hospital. Retail, Wholesale (RWDSU). Johnson and Johnson and Ethicon, Inc. Textile Workers Union (TW UA). Wisconsin Electric Power Co. Electrical, Brotherhood (IBEW). St. Joseph Lead Co. Steelworkers (USA). McLouth Steel Corp. Steelworkers (USA). Expiration date November 1967 June 1966 March 1967 December 1967 August 1968 August 1965 March 1966 May 1965 June 1966 August 1966 March 1968 June 1966 September 1967 July 1966 November 1965 October 1965 September 1965 August 1967 August 1967 February 1968 March 1966 June 1966 June 1968 May 1966 June 1967 March 1968 December 1965 63 Employer and union 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 Tennessee Copper Co. Chemical (ICW). Clarostat Manufacturing Co. , Inc. E lectrical, International (IUE). Raytheon Co. E lectrical, Brotherhood (IBEW). Calumet and Hecla, Inc. Steelworkers (USA). Am erican Cyanamid Co. Chemical (ICW). Hughes Tool Co. Steelworkers (USA). Wieboldt S tores, Inc. Building Service (BSE). Defoe Shipbuilding Co. Marine and Shipbuilding Workers (IUMSW). General Telphone Co. of Pennsylvania. E lectrical, Brotherhood (IBEW). I /A M issouri River Basin. Boilermakers (BBF). Detroit Tooling Association. Auto W orkers (UAW). Ling-Tem co-Vought, Inc. Auto W orkers (UAW). Potlatch F orests, Inc. Woodworkers (IWA). Scoville Manufacturing Co. Auto W orkers (UAW). The Boeing Company Seattle Professional Engineering Employees Association (Ind. ). Ohio B rass. Machinists (IAM). M arshall Field and Co. Building Service (BSE). Riegel Paper Corp. Papermakers and Paperworkers (UPP). Minnesota Apparel Industries. Clothing Workers (ACWA). Stewart-W arner Corp. E lectrical, Brotherhood (IBEW). Crocker, Burbank and Co. Papermakers and Paperworkers (UPP). Giant Food, Inc. Retail Clerks (RCIA). Atlantic Refining Co. Atlantic Independent Union (Ind.). Campbell Soup Co. Meat Cutters (MCBW). Douglas A ircraft Co. , Inc. The Southern California Engineering Association (Ind. ) P. Lorillard Co. (Greensboro Plant) Tobacco W orkers (TWIU). Expiration date August 1965 October 1965 August 1966 August 1965 December 1966 September 1967 May 1965 June 1967 July 1965 July 1967 October 1967 October 1965 May 1967 October 1966 June 1965 June 1966 June 1967 October 1965 May 1965 December 1967 July 1965 February 1966 March 1967 February 1966 August 1965 February 1968 Employer and union 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. Employees Independent Association (Ind. ). I /A Independent Packing Houses. Meat Cutters (MCBW). Whirlpool Corp. Team sters (TCWH) (Ind.). Combustion Engineering, Inc. Boilerm akers (BBF). Sperry Rand C orp .— Univac Division E lectrical, Brotherhood (IBEW). The United Illuminating Co. Federation of Utility Employees (Ind. ). Textile Machine Works. Textile Machine Works Em ployees' Independent Union (ind.). International Telephone and Telegraph Co. E lectrical, International (IUE). Winery Employers Association. D istillery W orkers (DRWW). Detroit Hotel Association. Hotel and Restaurant (HREU). Federal Glass Co. , Division of Federal Paper Board Co. , Inc. Glass Workers (AFGW). A C F Industries— Carter Carburetor Division Auto W orkers (UAW). United Parcel Co. Team sters (TCWH) (Ind.). Brooklyn Union Gas Co. Transport W orkers Union (TWU). Hamilton Manufacturing Co. Carpenters (CJA). Owens-Illinois Glass Co. Glass W orkers (AFGW). Clark B ros. C o .— Division of D resser Industries, Inc. Steelworkers (USA). Northrop C orp.— Ventura Division. Organization of Northrop Employees (Ind. ). Magna vox. E lectrical, International (IUE). New York Industrial Council of National Authority of Ladies Handbag Industry. Leather Goods, Plastic and Novelty Worker s (LGPN). Kelloggs Co. Grain M illers (AFGM). Coal Producers Association. P rogressive Mine Workers (Ind. ). Realty Advisory Board. Building Service (BSE). Ford Motor Co. Auto W orkers (UAW). Distributors Association. Longshoremen and Warehousemen (ILWU) (Ind.). Expiration date May 1965 November 1967 July 1967 August 1966 May 1967 June 1966 January 1966 September 1964 July 1966 December 1964 September 1965 June 1968 March 1965 M arch 1968 July 1965 September 1965 September 1965 August 1966 June 1968 May 1965 April 1966 March 1966 December 1965 September 1967 May 1967 65 Employer and union 100 101 10Z 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 1Z0 1Z1 1ZZ 1Z3 1Z4 1Z5 Philadelphia Gas W orks. Gas Works E m p loyees’ Union of Phila delphia (Ind. ). A C F Industries. Auto Workers (UAW). I. B. Kleinert Rubber Co. Federal Labor Union (FLU). A ssociated General Contractors of A m erica, Cincinnati, Ohio. Carpenters (CJA). Michigan Consolidated Gas Co. Building Service (BSE). Corning G lass Works. Flint G lass W orkers (AFGW). Union Carbide Corp. Chemicals and Crafts Union, Inc. (Ind. ). Otis Elevator Co. E lectrical, International (IUE). National Can Corp. Steelworkers (USA). Atlas Chemical Industries. Inc. D istrict 50-M ine W orkers (UM W -50) (Ind.). Packaging Corporation of Am erica. Pulp, Sulphite Workers (PSPMW). Pennsylvania Electric Co. E lectrical, Brotherhood (IBEW). Revlon, Inc. Retail, Wholesale (RWDSU). New York Shipping Association, Inc. Longshoremen’s Association (ILA). McDonnell A ircraft Corp. Machinists (LAM). Walworth Co. Steelworkers (USA). Beech-Nut Life Savers, Inc. Beech-Nut Employees Association (Ind. ). Metropolitan Container Council, Inc. Retail, Wholesale (RWDSU). Publishers Association of New York City Typographical Union (ITU). Los Angeles Coat and Suit Manufacturers Association. Ladies Garment (ILGWU). California Water and Telephone Co. E lectrical, Brotherhood (IBEW). U .S . Potters Association. Potters (IBOP). Granite City Steel Co. Steelworkers (USA). Meat Trades Institute, Inc. Meat Cutters (MCBW). The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co. Meat Cutters (MCBW). Hershey Chocolate Corp. Bakery W orkers (ABCW). Expiration date March 1967 June 1968 November 1966 May 1967 June 1967 January 1966 May 1966 August 1964 A pril 1965 June 1967 July 1966 May 1966 January 1965 September 1968 November 1965 A pril 1965 December 1965 August 1965 March 1965 May 1967 December 1964 November 1967 A pril 1965 June 1966 September 1965 December 1966 Employer and union 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 Industry/Area Woven Label Companies. Textile W orkers (UTWA). Clark Equipment Co. Allied Industrial W orkers (AIW). Clothing Manufacturers Association of the USA. Clothing W orkers (ACWA). Dry Cleaning and Laundry Institute of Detroit, Inc. Clothing Workers (ACWA). Industry/Area Glass Companies. Glass and Ceram ic W orkers (UGCW). Continental Can Co. Steelworkers (USA). Emerson Radio and Phonograph Corp. E lectrical, International (IUE). Graphic A rts Association of Michigan, Inc. Bookbinders (IBB). California P rocessors and G row ers, Inc. Team sters (TCWA) (Ind.). California Brewers Association Team sters (TCW H). (Ind. ). Distributors Association of Northern California. Longshoremen and Warehousemen (ILWU) (Ind. ). Atlantic and Gulf District— Standard Tanker. Marine Engineers (MEBA). Atlantic City Electric Co. E lectrical, Brotherhood (IBEW). Golden Gate Restaurant Association. Hotel and Restaurant (HREU). Wallpaper Manufacturing Industry. Pulp, and Sulphite Workers (PSPMW). National M aster Freight Agreement and Central States Local Cartage Supplement. Team sters (TCWH) (ind.) Am erican Smelting and Refining Co. Mine, M ill and Smelter W orkers (MMSW)(Ind.). Florida Power Corp. E lectrical, Brotherhood (IBEW). Kelly Springfield Tire Co. Rubber Workers (URW). Chicago Meat Packers and Wholesale Association Meat Cutters (MCBW). Boston Gas Co. District 50-M ine W orkers (UM W -50) (Ind.). Campbell Soup Co. Retail, Wholesale (RWDSU). Fischer Packing Co. and Klarer of Kentucky, Inc. Meat Cutters (MCBW). Industry/Area Leather Handbags. Leather Goods (LGPN). Oregon Restaurant and Beverage Association. Hotel and Restaurant (HREU). Expiration date May 1964 April 1965 May 1968 August 1968 March 1964 February 1965 December 1966 July 1967 March 1964 March 1964 May 1964 June 1965 December 1967 August 1969 May 1966 March 1967 June 1967 October 1966 June 1967 April 1967 September 1967 November 1966 October 1964 September 1965 May 1967 67 Clause number 151 1 52 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 Employer and union Empire State Cloth, Hat and Cap Manufacturers Association, Inc. Hatters (HCMW). Eastern W om en's Headwear Association. Hatters (HCMW). Detroit Mason Contractors Association. Bricklayers (BMP). Keystone Building Contractors Association Hod C arriers (HCL). The Building Trades Employers Association of Rochester. Hod C arriers (HCL). General Building Contractors Association Carpenters (CJA). Plumbing and Heating Contractors. Plumbers and Pipefitters (PPF). Associated General Contractors, W estern Washington District Council. Hod C arriers (HCL). Associated General Contractors of A m erica, Nevada Chapter. Building and Contruction Trades Department. Association of Master Painters and Decorators of New York City. Painters and Paperhangers (BPDP). Home Builders Association of Greater Seattle, Inc. Carpenters (CJA). Furnace Dealers and Sheet Metal Contractors. Sheet Metal Workers (SMW). Sheet Metal Contractors Association of San F ran cisco. Sheet Metal Workers (SMW). Associated General Contractors of A m erica, Baltim ore, Maryland. Hod C arriers (HCL). National W om en’ s Neckwear and Scarf Association. Ladies Garment (ILGWU). Bay Area Painters and Decorators. Painters and Paperhangers (BPDP). Painting and Decorating Contractors. Painters and Paperhangers (BPDP). Associated Plumbing Heating and Cooling Contractors. Plumbers and Pipefitters (PPF). Ingersoll Rand Co. Machinists (IAM). Celanese Corp. of A m erica. Textile Workers (TWUA). Anchor Hocking Glass Corp. Flint G lass Workers (AFGW). Industry/Area Milk D ealers. Team sters (TCWH) (Ind.). Expiration date June 1966 December 1965 April 1966 June 1966 April 1967 A pril 1965 March 1966 January 1968 May 1965 July 1965 February 1965 June 1965 June 1965 March 1970 April 1966 June 1965 A pril 1966 March 1966 June 1969 April 1965 September 1965 September 1965 68 Clause number 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 NOTE: Employer and union N .Y . State Electric and Gas Corp. E lectrical, Brotherhood (IBEW). Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. Rubber W orkers (URW). Illinois Association of Breweries and Beer W holesalers. Team sters (TCWH) (Ind.). Tecumseh Products Co. United Products Worker (ind. ). Piper Aircraft Corp. Machinists (IAM). New Jersey Laundry and Cleaning Institute. Laundry and Dry Cleaning Union (LDC). Publishers Association of New York City. Printing Pressm en (IPPA). Eaton Manufacturing Co. Mechanics Educational Society (MESA). Reliance Electric and Engineering Co. E lectrical, International (IUE). Expiration date June 1965 A pril 1967 A pril 1968 August 1965 September 1965 July 1964 June 1965 July 1967 June 1966 A ll unions are affiliated with the A F L —CIO except those followed by (Ind. ). The new Bulletin 14Z5 series on m ajor collective bargaining agreements is available from the Superintendent of Documents, U .S , Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 20402, or from the BLS Regional O ffices, as shown on the inside back cover. Bulletin number Price Major Collective Bargaining Agreements: 1425-1 1425-2 1425-3 1425-4 Grievance Procedures Severance Pay and Layoff Benefit Plans Supplemental Unemployment Benefit Plans and Wage-Employment Guarantees Deferred Wage Increase and Escalator Clauses For a list o f other industrial relations studies, write for A D irectory o f BLS Studies in Industrial Relations. ☆ 45 cents 60 cents 70 cents 40 cents 1954— 65. U .S . GOVERNM ENT PRINTING O FFIC E : 1966 O - 2 1 3 -8 5 0 BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS REGIONAL OFFICES
@FedFRASER