Acklin Stamping Company

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

May 4, 2007

08-CA-036788 (N.L.R.B. May. 4, 2007)

JD–32–07
Toledo, OH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
ACKLIN STAMPING COMPANY
and Case 8-CA-36788
NILES MENARD, AN INDIVIDUAL
UNITED AUTOMOBILE AEROSPACE AND
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA, UAW, LOCAL 12
and Case 8-CB-10622
NILES MENARD, AN INDIVIDUAL
Rudra Choudhury, Esq., of Cleveland, OH,
for the General Counsel.
Joan Torzewski, Esq., of Toledo, OH,
for the Respondent Union.
Renisa A. Dorner, Esq., of Toledo, OH,
for the Respondent Employer.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
Bruce D. Rosenstein, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried before me on
February 22, 2007, in Toledo, Ohio, pursuant to a Consolidated Complaint and Notice of
Hearing in the subject case (complaint) issued on November 28, 20061, by the Regional
Director for Region 8 of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board). The underlying
charges were filed by Niles Menard (the Charging Party or Menard) alleging that Acklin
Stamping Company (the Respondent Employer or Employer) and United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, Local 12 (the Respondent
Union or Union), has engaged in certain violations of Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) and 8(b)(1)(A)
and (b)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). The Respondent Employer and the
Respondent Union filed timely answers to the complaint denying that they had committed any
violations of the Act.
Issue
The complaint alleges that the Respondent Union requested the Respondent Employer
to discharge its employee Menard because it refused to allow Menard membership in the Union
and for reasons other than the failure to tender uniformly required initiation fees and periodic

1 All dates are in 2006 unless otherwise indicated.
JD–32–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
dues. Pursuant to the Respondent Union’s request, the Employer discharged Menard.
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel, Respondent Employer and the
Respondent Union, I make the following
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction
The Employer, with an office and place of business in Toledo, Ohio, is engaged in the
business of metal stamping. The Employer, during the past calendar year, in conducting its
business operations purchased and received goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from
points outside the State of Ohio. The Respondent Employer admits and I find that it is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and
that the Respondent Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
A. Background
The parties are subject to a collective-bargaining agreement effective by its terms from
October 18, 2005, to October 18, 2008 (GC Exh. 2). Pertinent provisions subject to this case
include article 3,2 article 6,3 and article 50.4
Since 1996, Daniel Twiss has been the International Representative of Respondent
Union in Region 2-B, which oversees the Union at the Respondent Employer. Twiss served as
the Union’s lead negotiator for the parties’ current collective-bargaining agreement, executed it
on behalf of the Union, and regularly assists the Union in the administration of their collective-
bargaining agreement including the processing of grievances.
Linda Straub served as Chairman of the Union at the Employer between 1997 and July
5. In an internal Union election held on May 31, Joel McVicker was elected to assume the
Chairmanship and informally assumed the duties of the position on June 30, during the time that
Straub was winding down her term of office.
Mark Echler holds the position of Corporate Director of Human Resources for Ice
Industries and is headquartered in Sylvania, Ohio. Ice Industries owns the Respondent
Employer and Echler oversees the human resources function at the facility ably assisted by on-
site human resource assistant Cheryl Lyons.
Vince Curtis serves as the Employer’s Plant Superintendent and has held the position
since April 10.

2 New employees will have a probationary period of (90) workdays and as a condition of
employment after the expiration of ninety (90) workdays will become members of the Union.
3 The Company agrees to discharge any employee covered by this contract when the Union
submits proof to the Company that the employee is not in good standing in the Union because
of the failure of the employee to pay his or her Union dues.
4 New employees will have no seniority until they have been with the Company for a period
of ninety (90) workdays, at the termination of which they have been accepted by the Company
as permanent employees.
JD–32–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
Menard was contacted by Lyons in early February 2006,5 to discern whether he was
interested in an electrician position at the Respondent Employer. Around the same time,
Menard saw an advertisement in the Toledo Blade newspaper seeking applicants for the
electrician position.6 Menard interviewed for the position in February 2006, submitted a written
application along with a resume and reference letters, and was offered the position by Lyons,
who scheduled a starting date of February 20. Lyons requested Menard to provide a written
summary of his related electrical experience to both the Employer and the Union. Menard
complied with this request when he submitted a letter from his prior employer on or about
February 15 (U Exh. 4).
B. The Section 8 (a)(1) and (3) and 8(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2) Allegations
1. The Position of the Parties
The General Counsel alleges in paragraph 8 of the complaint that about June 14,
Respondent Union requested that Respondent Employer discharge its employee Menard
because it refused to allow Menard membership in the Union and for reasons other than the
failure to tender uniformly required initiation fees and periodic dues. On or about June 14,
pursuant to the Union’s request, Respondent Employer discharged Menard. Under these
circumstances, the General Counsel alleges that the Respondent Union and Respondent
Employer engaged in violations of the Act and both are jointly and severally liable for wages and
benefits the employee lost due to the unlawful discharge.
The Respondent Employer argues that in an effort to maintain a positive relationship and
avoid an expensive grievance with the Union, it acquiesced to the Union’s demand to discharge
Menard on the basis that the Union did not find Menard qualified under its membership
requirements. Further, the Respondent Employer asserts that it had no intention of discharging
Menard until the Union demanded that he be terminated.7
The Respondent Union asserts that it did not affirmatively request that Menard be
terminated and therefore, it is not responsible for his subsequent discharge. Additionally, the
Union argues that Menard did not have an apprenticeship or journeyman card and lacked the
required eight years experience required for the electrician position. Since Menard lacked the
requisite qualifications and experience, the Employer terminated his employment.

5 Lyons worked in human resources at Techneglass, where Menard had worked for 35
years.
6 The advertisement stated in pertinent part under education/experience required: must
possess a journeyman’s electrician’s card or certification of having completed a U.S.
Department of Labor recognized apprenticeship as a journeyman electrician, or have 8 years of
proven experience working as an electrician in a manufacturing environment, along with 2 years
related experience.
7 By letter dated June 16, the Employer stated in pertinent part: Due to circumstances with
the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW), Local # 12, Mr. Menard was relieved of duty through no fault of his own (GC
Exh. 9).
JD–32–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
2. The Facts
Menard, on March 6, completed a Union membership application and dues check-off
authorization (U Exh. 2). He continued to remit dues to the Union for the months of April, May
and June 2006 (U Exh. 6). On the date of his termination, Menard had fully paid all periodic
dues and initiation fees to the Union.
In or around April 2006, Straub approached Menard and requested that he supplement
his electrical experience as the Union needed more detailed information to augment the letter
that he had provided from his prior employer.8 According to Menard, McVicker informed him
that he did not need to give additional documentation to the Union if his supervisor was not
requesting it. McVicker, however, denied that he informed Menard that supplemental
documentation did not have to be provided to the Union. In any event, Menard did not supply
any additional information to the Union.
In or around early May 2006, Straub showed the letter that Menard had provided from
his prior employer to both Twiss and Curtis. Straub testified that both individuals agreed that
there wasn’t enough information to verify Menard’s electrical experience. On or about June 10,
Curtis called Straub into his office and informed her that in his opinion Menard was not qualified
for the electrician’s job and he would like to create a position for him because he is a nice guy.
Straub informed Curtis that a skilled trade position could not be created for Menard because
there were other workers with more seniority that would be entitled to bid on the job. Straub
suggested that Curtis could create a production job and if Menard bid on the job and got it, it
was fine. Curtis thought that was a good idea.
On June 12, a meeting occurred in Curtis’s office that was attended by Lyons and
Menard. During the meeting, Curtis informed Menard that he was happy to have him aboard as
a full-time employee since he had successfully completed his 90 day probationary period.9
During the morning of June 14, Straub asked Curtis what had happened with Menard.
Curtis informed Straub that Menard had completed his probationary period and was a member
of the Union. Straub asked Curtis if Menard was coming on board as a permanent employee in
production. Curtis replied that Echler had overruled him and Menard would remain in
maintenance performing electrical work. Straub immediately telephoned Twiss to apprise him of
the situation with Menard.
Twiss, after talking with Straub on the morning of June 14, placed a telephone call to
Echler who was unavailable but left a message for him to return the call.
Earlier on June 14, before receiving the telephone message from Twiss, Curtis had
called Echler and informed him that Menard was slow and did not catch on quickly. Echler
informed Curtis that since Menard had completed his probationary period, the responsibility falls

8 Pursuant to a 2003 grievance settlement between the parties, it was agreed that the Union
Chairman would be able to review all new hires for the skilled trade positions to check if the
applicant has the qualifications for a journeyman card or the credentials to apply for one (GC
Exh. 3, item 2). McVicker confirmed in his testimony that this entitlement only applied during the
90 day probationary period of the new hire.
9 Menard completed his 90 days prior to June 20 because he worked sufficient overtime
hours.
JD–32–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
on either you or Lyons. Echler inquired if Curtis had performed the proper evaluations on
Menard during the probationary period, and Curtis replied that we really did not do so.
Echler testified that he returned the telephone call to Twiss either later that morning or
early afternoon.
Twiss testified that he informed Echler that the Union had a problem with Menard’s
qualifications and he did not hold a journeyman’s card. According to Twiss, Echler said he did
not know what Twiss was talking about. Twiss said, “We need to resolve the situation with
Menard’s qualifications.” Twiss informed Echler that Curtis had told McVicker that he would
take care of the problem. According to Twiss, Echler said he would just terminate Menard.
Twiss said, “I am not asking you to do this”.
According to Echler, after he returned the telephone call, Twiss informed him that the
Union has an issue with Menard as he is not qualified to be an electrician. Echler said, “He has
already reached his 90 days and he’s beyond that point.” Twiss said, “It doesn’t matter, I don’t
care, this guy’s not an electrician, you need to get him out of there.” Echler said, “What you are
trying to tell me is I should terminate him.” Twiss said “yes”. Echler said, “I will call Vince Curtis
and I will let him know.” Echler then telephoned Curtis and instructed him to terminate Menard.

Curtis testified that Echler telephoned him during the afternoon of June 14, and stated
that Twiss asked that Menard be terminated. Echler then instructed Curtis to terminate Menard.
Curtis contacted Menard to offer him a production job. Menard turned the offer down since it
would be at a reduced rate of pay.
Thereafter, on the afternoon of June 14, Lyons telephoned Menard at home and told him
not to come into work. She informed Menard that the Union would not accept him as an
electrician, and therefore, she had to terminate him.
3. The Agency Status of Daniel Twiss
The Board and the Courts have uniformly held that whether someone acts as an agent
under the Act must be determined by common law principles of agency. See, e.g. NLRB v.
Plasterers & Cement Masons Local 90 (Southern III. Builders Ass’n), 606 F.2d 189 (7th Cir.
1979), enforcing 236 NLRB 329 (1978).
Applying these principles to the subject case, the evidence establishes that Twiss
negotiated four contracts including the parties’ current collective-bargaining agreement on
behalf of the Union and routinely visits the facility to participate in discussions with the parties to
resolve disputes including the processing of grievances. Additionally, Twiss acknowledged that
he has a long standing relationship with Echler on behalf of the Union and routinely deals with
him on issues related to the administration of their collective-bargaining agreement.
Further evidence that impacts on the agency status of Twiss was his testimony that
when he made the June 14 telephone call to Echler concerning Menard, it was on behalf of the
Respondent Union.
For all of the above reasons, and contrary to the Respondent Union’s denial of his
agency status, I find that Twiss is an agent of the Union for all matters associated with this case.
JD–32–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
4. Analysis
In Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied
455 U.S. 989 (1982), the Board announced the following causation test in all cases alleging
violations of Section 8(a)(3) or violations of Section 8(a)(1) turning on employer motivation.
First, the General Counsel must make a prima facie showing sufficient to support the inference
that protected conduct was a “motivating factor” in the employer decision. On such a showing,
the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate that the same action would have taken place
even in the absence of the protected conduct. The United States Supreme Court approved and
adopted the Board’s Wright Line test in NLRB v. Transportation Management Corp., 462 U.S.
393, 399-403 (1983). In Manno Electric, 321 NLRB 278, fn. 12 (1996), the Board restated the
test as follows. The General Counsel has the burden to persuade that antiunion sentiment was
a substantial or motivating factor in the challenged employer decision. The burden of
persuasion then shifts to the employer to prove its affirmative defense that it would have taken
the same action even if the employee had not engaged in the protected activity.
The Supreme Court has held in Air line Pilots Assn. v. O’Neill, 499 U.S. 65 (1991) that
the “arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith” standard applies to all union activity.
The Board has held that a labor organization violates Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2) of the
Act when pursuant to a union–security agreement it seeks the discharge of employees who
have been denied membership on grounds other than their failure to tender periodic dues
uniformly required as a condition of employment. In addition, an employer violates Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act when it discharges an employee, pursuant to a valid union-security
agreement, if it is aware that the employee has tendered his periodic dues. AMF Wheel Goods
Division of AMF Incorporated and Kenneth D. Schwartz, 247 NLRB 231 (1980).
The evidence establishes that Menard fully complied with his membership requirements
including the tendering of periodic dues and initiation fees and the Employer had never been
apprised otherwise by the Union. Indeed, the Employer was aware through the check-off
process that Menard had remitted his dues and initiation fee to the Union.
Contrary to the Union’s argument that Twiss never requested that Menard be
terminated, I find otherwise for the following reasons. It is not in dispute, and the Union did not
contend otherwise, that Menard completed his 90 day probationary period on June 12. The
grievance settlement, that the Union relies upon to check whether an applicant has the
qualifications for a journeyman card or has the credentials to apply for one, is only applicable
during the probationary period. On June 12, the Employer determined that Menard qualified as
a permanent full-time employee and considered him part of its maintenance department that
was responsible for the performance of electrical work. Indeed, Curtis apprised Straub of this
fact on the morning of June 14, which prompted Straub’s telephone call to Twiss. Therefore, it
strains credulity that Echler would have independently terminated Menard without having first
been requested to do so by the Union. Further, I credit Curtis’s testimony that when Echler
called on June 14, immediately after talking with Twiss, he told him that Twiss asked that
Menard be terminated and he should carry out this act.
Lastly, I note that on June 16, the Employer prepared a letter to “whom it may concern”
that due to circumstances with the Union, Menard was relieved of duty through no fault of his
own. The letter further stated that the Employer would recommend him and viewed him as a
valued worker with an exemplary attendance record and a positive work attitude who would hire
him again if the opportunity should arise (GC Exh. 9).
JD–32–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
Under these circumstances, and for all of the above reasons, I find that the Respondent
Employer and the Respondent Union acted in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner and the
Union breached its duty of fair representation owed to Menard. They further violated Sections
8(a)(1) and (3) and 8(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2) of the Act when the Employer discharged Menard
based on the Union’s request for reasons other then the tendering of periodic dues and initiation
fees uniformly required.
Conclusions of Law
1. Acklin Stamping Company is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(2), (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (b)(2) of the Act when it requested
Acklin Stamping Company to terminate Menard for reasons other than the failure to tender
uniformly required initiation fees and periodic dues.
4. Respondent Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act when it terminated
Menard based on the Union’s request for reasons other than the failure to tender uniformly
required initiation fees and periodic dues.
Remedy
Having found that the Respondent Employer and Respondent Union have engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, I find that they must be ordered to cease and desist and to take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act
Accordingly, I order the Respondent Employer to immediately reinstate Menard to his
former or substantially equivalent job and that the Respondent Employer and Respondent Union
jointly and severally make Niles Menard whole for any loss of earnings, less any net interim
earnings, as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus interest as
computed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended10
ORDER
A. Acklin Stamping Company, It’s officers, agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Terminating Niles Menard for reasons other then the failure to tender
uniformly required initiation fees and periodic dues.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining or coercing
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the
Act.

10 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
JD–32–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Immediately reinstate Niles Menard to his former or a substantially equivalent
position and jointly and severally make him whole, with interest, for any loss
of earnings suffered because he was terminated in the manner set forth in the
remedy section of the decision.
(b) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from the files of Acklin
Stamping Company, any reference to the unlawful termination of Niles
Menard, and within 3 days thereafter, notify him in writing that we have done
so and that we will not use the termination against him in any way.
(c) We will preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as
the Regional Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a
reasonable place designated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records,
social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored in
electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at our offices, copies of the
attached notice marked “Appendix A.”11 Copies of the notices, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 8, after being signed by the
Respondent Employer’s authorized representatives, shall be posted and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material. In the event that, during the pendency of
these proceedings, the Respondent Employer has gone out of business it
shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all
employees at any time since June 14, 2006.
(e) Sign and return to the Regional Director sufficient copies of the notice for
posting at all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a
sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region
attesting to the steps that it has taken to comply.
B. Respondent United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, UAW, Local 12, its officers agents, and representatives, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Causing or attempting to cause Acklin Stamping Company to discriminate
against Niles Menard or any other employee in violation of Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Jointly and severally make whole Niles Menard, with interest, for any loss of

11 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in
the notice reading “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
JD–32–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
earnings suffered because he was terminated in the manner set forth in the
remedy section of the decision.
(b) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from the Union’s files, any
reference to the unlawful termination of Niles Menard, and within 3 days
thereafter, notify him in writing that we have done so and that we will not use
the termination against him in any way.
(c) WE will preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as
the Regional Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a
reasonable place designated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records,
social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored in
electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at the Union Office, copies of
the attached notice marked “Appendix B.”12 Copies of the notices, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 8, after being signed by the
Respondent Union’s authorized representatives, shall be posted and
maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all
places where notices to employees and members are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event that, during the
pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent Union has gone out of
business or closed the Union office involved in these proceedings, it shall
duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all employees
and current members employed by Acklin Stamping Company at any time
since June 14, 2006.
(e) Sign and return to the Regional Director sufficient copies of the notice for
posting by the Union at all places where notices to employees and members
are customarily posted.
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director a
sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region
attesting to the steps that it has taken to comply.

12 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in
the notice reading “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted
Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
JD–32–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed insofar as it alleges
violations of the Act not specifically found.
Dated, Washington, D.C. May 4, 2007
____________________
Bruce D. Rosenstein
Administrative Law Judge
JD–32–07
Toledo, OH
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this Notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, offer Niles Menard full
reinstatement to his former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL, jointly and severally, make Niles Menard whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against him in the manner set forth in the
remedy section of the decision.
WE WILL within 14 days from the date of the Board’s Order, remove from our files any
reference to the unlawful discharge, and within 3 days thereafter notify the employee in writing
that this has been done and that the discharge will not be used against him in any way.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
Acklin Stamping Company
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
1240 East 9th Street, Federal Building, Room 1695
Cleveland, Ohio 44199-2086
Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
216-522-3716.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST
JD–32–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
12
NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS
NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, 216-522-3723.
JD–32–07
Toledo, OH
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated Federal labor law and has
ordered us to post and obey this Notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain on your behalf with your employer
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL, jointly and severally, make Niles Menard whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits resulting from our request to Acklin Stamping Company to terminate Niles
Menard for reasons other then the failure to tender uniformly required initiation fees and periodic
dues, less any net interim earnings, plus interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove from our files, any
reference to the our request to Acklin Stamping Company to terminate Niles Menard , and WE
WILL, within 3 days thereafter, notify him in writing that we have done so and that we will not
use the termination against him in any way.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce you in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, UAW, Local 12
(Labor Organization)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor Relations
Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it investigates and
remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under the Act and how to file a
charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s Regional Office set forth below. You may
also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
1240 East 9th Street, Federal Building, Room 1695
Cleveland, Ohio 44199-2086
Hours: 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.
216-522-3716.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST
NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS
NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, 216-522-3723.
JD–32–07
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
14