Uniroyal Strike Talks Reopen In 53rd Day

6-13-67

NAUGATUCK— Bargaining sessions between the United Rubber Workers and five major rubber producers, including Uniroyal, reopened Monday in Ohio as a strike against three of the companies entered its 53rd day.

Although negotiators for the URW and Uniroyal management could either not be contacted or refused to comment Monday night, reliable sources pointed to the progress made during the past week and held out hope that a settlement might be reached before another week passes.

Although union members in the borough have expected that pensions would be discussed in September offers from the rubber companies, including Uniroyal, have lately included the pension and fringe benefit items.

Management sources have indicated a reluctance to face the cost of wage increases with the possible threat of a second strike in September over pension items.

While the latest word from Uniroyal was that wage increases in its offer were 38 cents for tire workers and 31 for non-tire workers it was learned that General Tire had boosted its wage increases to 40 cents for tire workers.

General Tire, however, has only 3,000 workers in two tire plants. In addition, General Tire is said to have boosted its supplemental unemployment benefits to 80 per cent, and offered a provision for six weeks of vacation for employes with over 30 years service.

It could not be determined Monday night whether Uniroyal had made a similar offer.

Reliable sources have called General Tire and Goodyear, who are both working on a day-to-day basis, pattern companies.

According to the sources, a settlement between the URW and these companies is expected to set a pattern for settlement with Uniroyal, B. F. Goodrich and Firestone, the struck companies.

During the past two weeks, all companies have been talking a three-year pact with the union, and some union sources have indicated a feeling that the final settlement would be for three years.

Local 45 Vice President Raymond Mengacci, in a statement to local newspapers Monday, said that although he didn’t want to enter a debate with Footwear Plant manager John Smith, he felt compelled to answer a letter sent to employes last week by the company.

Mengacci noted that both the company and the union committees “were having a hard enough time in Cincinnati, Ohio, to negotiate an agreement in Naugatuck,” without doing it through the newspapers.

Mengacci said when the union negotiating committee left for Cincinnati it was for the sole purpose of making a sincere effort to negotiate a contract and wage agreement with Uniroyal before the April 20 deadline. Negotiations began in Cincinnati March 21, and “it wasn’t until April 12 that the company made its first and final offer to the union on contract and wages, eight days before the deadline.

“This,” Mengacci stated, “has never happened in the history of my experiences on the negotiating committee or that of Pres. George Froehlich, that the first offer was also the last. No one can call this negotiating. This has never been done before. It wasn’t until a few days later that the union found out that this was being done in all of the Big Four rubber companies, not just Uniroyal. The union also found out these companies had made a mutual pact designed to protect any struck company against financial losses.

“We in the union were always led to believe these companies were in competition with one another, but found it is not so. They have a much better union than we have.”

Plant Manager Smith, in his letter, said the company had made an effort to open the pension and insurance agreement. “This, Mengacci said, “was correct, but the union informed the company this agreement does not terminate until Sept. 15, 1967, and the union was in no position to negotiate this agreement as it had not been discussed with their membership to determine what changes were wanted. Also they had made no preparation on pension and insurance to discuss this question intelligently with the company.

“Mr. Smith stated the union did not present to the company their full proposal until 11 a.m. April 19, just 37 hours before the strike deadline. This is correct, but why? The union felt if they received from the company the correct interpretation of the clauses in the working agreement now, and the way they were intended to be interpreted, at least in the union’s viewpoint, before there was a change in the head negotiator for the company, they would not have to make any changes.

“The union found out the company’s new head negotiator was not given the same interpretation. Therefore, the union came in with some new proposals as the union would not be able to live with some of the interpretations that were given to the new head negotiator, under Article 9, working conditions.

“These conditions are important to our members especially those working in the making and stitching departments. Production in many cases has increased by 25 to 30 per cent in the last few years, with the same amount of operators and in many cases less.

“Many of the employes can verify their weekly earnings are less now even though they have received two wage increases in the past few years. They cannot make anywhere near the efficiency they were making a few years ago and this is the reason the union had to make some late proposals to the company. If the company wanted to make a sincere effort to reach an agreement, they still had plenty of time to do so.”

Mengacci asserted the union does not believe the non-tire plants are putting the company in a “severe economic squeeze,” if they grant the same wage increases as the tire companies.” He noted wages increase of 41.6 per cent have been given to George R. Vila, president of Uniroyal, and 36.6 per cent to Walter D. Baldwin, vice president. “The union is not saying these men do not deserve the increase, but if the company wants to talk percentages, then talk percentages from top to bottom,” the Union official said.

“We are happy the company has seen fit to increase the vacation allowance for employes with one to five years of seniority, but what about the employe with 10 or more years of seniority.”

The union official also said that, although the company had improved some of the contract clauses, the union questions why the company would not give a letter of commitment, “which would not cost a penny to treat union members with decency and respect. If management expects our members to treat them with decency and respect, then we expect the same treatment. A written commitment would have gone a long way in reaching a settlement.”

No comments were made on the pension and insurance pact offered by the company. Mengacci said it had to be studied before a statement was made. However, he said he “was happy to see the company is negotiating with the union, even though it took from April 12 to June 5 to make their latest offer. The union rejection was a take-it-all or reject-it-all offer, which the union could not live with.

“I can assure Mr. Smith that George Froehlich and the rest of the union’s committee of Local 45 will do everything in their power to bring this dispute to a settlement as fast as possible,” Mengacci concluded.