Contract negotiations, 1966

: part of document from contract negotiations dated 1955 regarding negotiations for wages; letter from Carl Johnson stating, “As soon as you notify the union that you are ready to resume negotiations with regard to all of the proposals submitted by the union including those relating to a pension plan, with the full bargaining committee designated by the union, we shall at once meet with you for the purpose of negotiating a complete contract covering all of the union's proposals.”; letter from National Labor Relations Board dated June 1, 1966 about Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation Case No. 1-CA-5498; Letter addressed to Winchester-Western Employees at New Haven from Lowell E. Krieg explaining the company's position on union-company negotiations, it asks: “...I wonder if you realize that a wage increase at this time would seriously affect the employment security of a large number of employees?”; statement from Lowell E. Krieg, “A Stake in the Future” explaining the company's position on contract negotiations; carbon copy of letter form National Labor Relations Board dated June 2, 1966 regarding receipt of arbitration; letter addressed to W.L.C. Jones of Olin Mathieson Company dated June 1966 stating the union's position against the company's offer; letter addressed to Carl Johnson from Winchester Corporation dated May 17, 1966 “...in response to your request yesterday that a meeting be arranged on May 26 for the Union to present its pension proposals.”; S.S. Affidavit from Carl Johnson; letter from Carl Johnson regarding suggestions for dates for negotiating sessions dated 1966; letter addressed to Stephen J. Harris of Industrial Union Department dated May 13, 1966 providing information from the company about union-company negotiations; United States of America National Labor Relations Board Charge Against Employer, dated June 1, 1966, “On May 26, 1966, the Company refused to meet and bargain collectively with the Union Negotiating Committee...[the] company has and continues to refuse to bargain collectively with the aforesaid Lodge 609, as the statutory representative of its employees in the aforesaid unit and thereby has engaged in and continues to engage in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) 5 and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act as amended.”; S.S. Affidavit from Carl Johnson; statement from W.L.C. Jones Manager, Industrial Relations stating, “At no time in the past have observers from unions at the other Olin locations been included in our negotiations. It is most unfortunate that your refusal this morning to carry on with our scheduled meeting seemed to be based solely on the Union's insistence that such observers be present; S.S. Affidavit of Carl Johnson; form for filing contract negotiation disputes; carbon copy of letter addressed to Albert J. Hoban of National Labor Relations Board dated June 1, 1966 Daniel Baker regarding that “Unless negotiations commence at an early date the prospects that an agreement will be reached prior to the expiration of the contract are very remote.”; National Labor Relations Board Charge Against Labor Organization or Its Agents dated May 26, 1966 between Local 609 and Olin Corporation; S.S. Affidavit from Carl Johnson; list of company proposals for 1966 with penciled check marks next to each listed Article; page 2 of letter from Carl Johnson stating that the company refused to allow contract negotiations with the Union Committee to continue; letter to Carl Johnson from Robert Cronin “This will recognize receipt of the notice which has been filed in this matter in accord with the National Labor Relations Act” dated June 3, 1964; letter addressed to Carl Johnson from Edward J. Zadravec dated May 16, 1966 listing the Straight Time Average Hourly Earnings back to 1957; “Progress Report” informing union members of status of company-union negotiations; letter to Olin Employees from W.L.C. Jones explaining the company's position on contract negotiations IAMAW Investigation of Grievance Blank dated June 13, 1966 regarding “The Olin Mathieson Company has refused to bargain which has resulted in the filing of Unfair labor practice Charges. The situation has many marked similarities to the G.E. Situation where the company is challenging the right of the Union to select its own representatives.]