American Safety Equipment Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 16, 1979

241 N.L.R.B. 115 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

AMERICAN SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORPORATION
American Safety Equipment Corporation and Lodge
No. 822, International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 14-CA
11234
March 16, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND PENELLO
On October 30, 1978, Administrative Law Judge
Lowell Goerlich issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions
and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions' and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions 2 of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or-
ders that the Respondent, American Safety
Equipment Corporation, Palmyra, Missouri, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the ac-
tion set forth in the said recommended Order.
I Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule
an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless
the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the
resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products, Inc., 91 NLRB 544
(1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the
record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
2 In reviewing the conduct of the parties between the date on which the
Regional Director issued the certification and the date on which the Board
denied Respondent's request for review, the Administrative Law Judge dis-
cussed, inter alia, the significance of the filing of 8(aX5) and () charges in
March 1977 and the subsequent partial settlement of those charges. Al-
though we agree, generally, with the Administrative Law Judge's analysis of
the background facts of this case, and with his conclusion that the record
supports a finding that Respondent was on notice of the Union's desire for
bargaining, we find it unnecessary to rely on, or adopt, the Administrative
Law Judge's suggestion that a request for bargaining is implicit in the filing
of an 8(a)(5) charge.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LOWELL GOERLICH, Administrative Law Judge: The
charge filed by Lodge No. 822, International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL CIO, herein
called the Union, on March 15, 1978, was served by regis-
tered mail on American Safety Equipment Corporation,
Respondent herein, on or about the same date. A complaint
and notice of hearing was issued on June 8, 1978.
In the complaint it was charged that Respondent has re-
fused and is refusing to recognize and bargain collectively
with the Union and since February 28, 1978, it has failed to
furnish the Union necessary, relevant, and material infor-
mation, all in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein referred
to as the Act.
Respondent filed timely answers denying that it had en-
gaged in or was engaging in the unfair labor practices al-
leged and alleging several affirmative defenses.'
The case came on for hearing on August 22, 1976, at
Hannibal, Missouri. Each party was afforded a full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to call, to examine and to cross-examine
witnesses, to argue orally on the record, to submit proposed
findings of fact and conclusions, and to file briefs. All briefs
have been carefully considered.
i Respondent's affirmative defenses were as follows:
FOR A FIRST, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, DEFENDENT ALLEGES:
The Complaint herein fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
FOR A SECOND, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:
The Regional Director erred in setting aside the election conducted
pursuant to Section 9(c) of the Act on October 29. 1976, wherein a
majority of Respondent's employees in a valid election voted against
representation by the Union herein. Accordingly, the Regional Direc-
tor's Second Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representative
issued on January 26, 1977, certifying the Union herein as the collective
bargaining representative of certain of Respondent's employees, is void
as a matter of law.
FOR A THIRD, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:
The Union, at no time during its alleged certification year herein,
made demand upon the Employer to bargain. Accordingly, the Union
herein has, by its conduct, abandoned and disclaimed interest in repre-
sentation of any of Respondent's employees.
FOR A FOURTH. SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE
DEFENSE, DEFENDANT ALLEGES:
On or about March 9, 1978, Respondent's employees filed a Decerti-
fication Petition pursuant to Section 9 of the Act, which case is known
on the Board's books and records as Case No. 14-RM-521. Said peti-
tion raised a question concerning representation within the meaning of
Section 9 of the Act, and, accordingly, Respondent has, at all times
material herein. been precluded as a matter of law from engaging in
collective bargaining negotiations with the Union herein.
2 The facts found herein are based on the record as a whole and the obser-
vation of the witnesses. The credibility resolutions herein have been derived
from a review of the entire testimonial record and exhibits, with due regard
for the logic of probability, the demeanor of the witnesses, and the teachings
of N.L.R.B. v. Walton Manufacturing Compaony & Loganville Pants Co., 369
U.S. 404. 408 (1962). As to those witnesses testifying in contradiction to the
findings herein, their testimony has been discredited either as having been in
conflict with the testimony of credible witnesses or because it was in and of
itself incredible and unworthy of belief. All testimony has been reviewed and
weighed in the light of the entire record. No testimony has been preter-
mitted.
241 NLRB No. 13
115
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Findings of Fact,2 Conclusions, and Reasons Therefor
1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein,
a corporation duly authorized to do business under the laws
of the State of New York.
At all times material herein, Respondent has maintained
its principal office and place of business in Encino, Califor-
nia. Respondent maintains another facility at American
Road, Palmyra, Missouri. Respondent is and has at all
times material herein engaged in the manufacture and non-
retail sale and distribution of safety equipment and related
products. Respondent's facility located at Palmyra, Mis-
souri, is the only facility involved in this proceeding.
During the year ending May 31, 1978, which period is
representative of its operations during all times material
herein, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its busi-
ness operations, manufactured, sold, and distributed at its
Palmyra, Missouri, facility, products valued in excess of
$50,000, of which products valued in excess of $50,000 were
shipped from said facility directly to points located outside
of the State of Missouri.
Respondent is now and has been at all times material
herein an employer engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Lodge No. 822, International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, is and has been at all
times material herein a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
111. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
On October 4, 1976, the Regional Director directed an
election in Case 14-RC-8247 in the following unit of Re-
spondent's employees:
All production and maintenance employees, includ-
ing assemblers, maintenance mechanics, quality con-
trol employees, general laborers and lead persons em-
ployed at Respondent's Palmyra, Missouri, facility,
excluding office clerical and professional employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Thereafter on October 29, 1976, an election was conducted
in which the Union was defeated by 7 votes; 309 votes were
cast, of which 1 was challenged. The Union filed objections
to conduct affecting the results of the election on November
5, 1976. On December 9, 1976, the Regional Director set
aside the election and ordered a new election. Respondent's
request for review was denied and a new election was con-
ducted on January 14, 1977. A majority of the votes was
cast for the Union; 346 votes were cast; 174 were for the
Union. Respondent filed objections to the election alleging
that "[t]he Regional Director erred in directing and holding
the election on January 14, 1977, in that said election was
directed and conducted in violation of 9(c)(3) of the Act in
that a valid election was held in the preceeding twelve
month period." On January 26, 1977, the Regional Director
issued the Regional Director's Second Supplemental Deci-
sion and Certification of Representative. Respondent filed a
request for review with the Board on February 2, 1977.
After the certification in January 1977, Union Represent-
ative James L. Nauert phoned Industrial Relations Man-
ager Donald W. Ahrens and asked him for a plant tour.
Nauert also informed Ahrens that he was in the process of
drawing up a contract and that when it was ready "they"
would notify him. Ahrens replied that he could see no prob-
lem and would "get back" to him.
On February 11, 1977, Respondent posted a notice in the
plant advising employees that it was seeking court review of
the "Board's decision setting aside the election held on Oc-
tober 29, 1976, wherein a majority of Palmyra Plant em-
ployees voted against union representation." A part of the
notice read:
Pending the final outcome of this matter, we will, of
course, continue to operate the Palmyra facility in the
same manner as we have in the past, and we will con-
tinue to apply the same policies relating to wages,
hours and working conditions which have been an-
nounced in the past.
We will continue to keep you advised of all develop-
ments in this matter.
On March 4, 1977, Respondent posted another notice
entitled "Employee Equity Committee" which contained
the following language:
Last April, we posted a notice reminding you that
we had an "open door policy" which gave employees
access to any member of management if they had
questions or needed help in solving a problem. Discus-
sions followed in May and June to expand this policy
to include an Employee Equity Committee, the plans
for which had to be curtailed.
We now plan to implement the committee idea. It is
vital that we continue to expand our programs to im-
prove communications. We will meet periodically with
a committee to discuss policies and programs, examine
areas of mutual concern, and consider recommenda-
tions for improvement.
A "pilot" group of six people from various areas of
the plant will be selected to serve as an advisory group
to help set up guidelines and directions for the perma-
nent committee. Volunteers are needed. People who
are interested in other people, who can communicate,
who are objective and concerned for the welfare of
others would be ideal advisory committee members.
To be considered for participation on this committee,
give your name to your foreman by the end of shift
Tuesday, March 8.
When the committee has been selected and an-
nounced, you may use these people for a "sounding
Board" for your ideas and suggestions. We will appre-
ciate and consider any constructive items or comments
you have.
Working together in this fashion will result in a bet-
ter place for all of us to work.
Upon learning of the notice, Nauert telephoned Ahrens.
Among other things he reminded Ahrens that the Union
was the bargaining agent and that the Union was ready to
bargain when Respondent was ready. Ahrens replied that
116
AMERICAN SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORPORATION
he had no control over bargaining. Thereafter, on March
23, 1977, the Union filed an 8(a)(5) and (1) charge in Case
14-CA-10138.3 The issues raised by the charges were set-
tled on April 19, 1977, by Respondent's agreeing to post the
standard notice on employee rights with the language:
WE WILL NOT suggest the formation of an Employee
Equity Committee, or by any other means do anything
that interferes with the above mentioned rights.
The other 8(a)(5) aspects of the charge were withdrawn
around April 12, 1977, by the Union upon the suggestion
and advice of the Board's field attorney.
On January 26, 1978, the National Labor Relations
Board denied Respondent's request for review in Case 14-
RC-8247 (234 NLRB No. 95).
On February , 1978, in a letter, after reciting the over-
ruling of Respondent's request for review, the Union in-
formed Respondent it was "prepared to negotiate the initial
agreement." (G.C. Exh. 6). The Union received no reply to
this letter.
On February 28, 1978, the Union addressed another let-
ter to Respondent as follows:
The letter sent to you on February I, 1978 still
stands as an on going request even though you have
refused to answer said letter.
In addition to the requests in that Letter Lodge No.
822 now requests the name, address, sex, job classifica-
tion, rate of pay and seniority date of each employee as
so stipulated as coming under the jurisdiction of the
production and maintenance unit.
We further request a copy of the current health and
welfare program available to these employees as well
as all fringe benefits being granted.
In the meantime a strike occurred at Respondent's plant
in Fresno, California. Respondent solicited volunteers from
its Palmyra complement to travel to Fresno and work be-
hind the picket lines there. One of these employees was
Cheryl O'Neal, who, after a 2-week tour, returned to the
Palmyra plant in late January 1978. She and others after
their experiences in working behind the picket lines in
Fresno apparently became disenchanted with the Union.4
O'Neal commenced circulating a petition during the first
week in February 1978, in which employees were asked to
register their disfavor for the Union. The petition was
signed by 83 employees and was sent to the Board's Re-
gional Office on February 24, 1978. On March 6, 1978,
O'Neal filed a decertification petition in Case 14-RD-612.
On March 9, 1978, Respondent filed a representation peti-
tion in Case 14-RN-521. The list of names submitted to the
Board by O'Neal was deemed inadequate and she was re-
quested to submit another document with dates entered af-
3 A part of said charge read:
Since on or about January 26, 1977, said employer had refused to bar-
gain with Lodge No. 822, International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, the certified representative of its em-
ployees in a unit of all production and maintenance employees. includ-
ing assemblers, maintenance mechanics, quality control employees, gen-
eral laborers and lead persons employed at the Employer's Palmyra,
Missouri, facility.
4O'Neal testified that pickets had called her "scabbie" and threw eggs at
her.
ter the employees' signatures. This she did. The document
contained 89 dated signatures.
On March 15, 1978, charges were filed in the instant case
and consideration of the representation case was suspended
pending final disposition of the unfair labor practices. Both
petitions were later dismissed by the Regional Director
around June 13, 1978. Upon appeal to the Board, the Re-
gional Director's dismissal was affirmed on August 10,
1978.
Respondent learned of the circulation of the above-men-
tioned petition during the period in which O'Neal was solic-
iting signatures. Respondent also learned that the 20 em-
ployees who had returned from Fresno and other
employees were discussing the Fresno experience and were
looking upon the Union with disfavor. Moreover, Respon-
dent, when it asked for volunteers for work in Fresno re-
ceived a positive response from about 80 percent of the
employees. Ahrens testified that between 80 and 85 percent
of the employees had spoken to him about the "union situ-
ation" and said that they were "opposed to the Union."' In
this regard, questions were asked by employees as to how
they could get out of the Union and how they could get
their money back (money paid to the Union). Respondent
also learned that at a union meeting scheduled for February
9, 1978, only 20 or 30 people attended. The purpose of the
meeting (which Respondent learned through a notice) was
"[T]o ratify contract proposals and to elect (1) member to
the Negotiating Committee."
B. Conclusions and Reasons Therefor
In the consideration of the principal issue raised herein
the point of departure is the case of Allstate Insurance Co.,
234 NLRB 193 (1978) recently decided by the Board. In the
Allstate case, which is almost identical to the instant case,
the Board emphasized the importance of the Regional Di-
rector's certification and held that the employer was obli-
gated to bargain between the time of the Regional Direc-
tor's certification and the Board's denial of review of the
Regional Director's disposition of the employer's objec-
tions. The Board opined, "It is well established that an em-
ployer refuses to recognize a certified labor organization at
its peril." Such conclusion is obviously in line with Section
8(a)(5) of the Act which makes it an unfair labor practice
for an employer to refuse to bargain collectively with the
representative of its employees when the representative is
"designated or selected for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropri-
ate for such purposes." (See Section 9(a) of the Act.) Thus
when the employees selected the Union to represent them
for the purposes of collective bargaining at the election in
conformity with Section 9(a) of the Act on January 14,
1977, Section 8(a)(5) of the Act became operational, and
Respondent thereafter was obligated to recognize and bar-
gain with the Union. In Allstate the Board said that "all
that is required to prove a violation [of Section 8(a)(5) of
the Act] is the Respondent's admitted refusal to meet with
the certified Unions." Here, Respondent in no uncertain
terms manifested a refusal to recognize and bargain with
Ahrens testified these conversations were initiated b the employees.
117
1)1 tISI(ONS ()F NA I I)NAI. I.ABOR RI.A IO()NS BO()ARI)
the Jnion when on ehbui iar 11. 1'77. Respondent posted
a notice which in eectl ljCejClpd the' I 'nion ;is tile h;argalin-
ing agent. Such rejection wi as Ilurth;ir niibiifestcd wvhen Re-
spondent. looking askance at its dlt\ to deal onlv with the
certified bargaining agent," pro(ided for the formaltion of an
employee equity cominittee with vhich it vould nmeet peri-
odically to discuss policies and prograns. examine areas oft
nUtlllll concern, and onsidei ieconil nnda;tions lr im-
provementt." oreovei, whenii te Ilnion filed 8(;)i5)
charges. Respondent again rejected the I rioni as the exclu
sive representative of its emplo ces swhen it agreed to settle
certain of the charges but did nolt aree to assule its duties
to argain hich h;lid attred J " i 7 (finailv when I nion
Represent;tive Nanuert renrinded .lhrens shor tl, alter
March 4. 177, that the I Tnieln swds tile barN;lining lagent
rather than tile clplovce equity ci nnittee and was read s
to hargain when Cespondell \I as readJ. hv ignoringl thc
Uinion's oral requlest to hr,;lin gai;tn ReslponTlet rejected
the inion as the exclusice barglir;linL representalive and
refused to alsslnle its dult I, to bhlgain
Once nmore, Respondent rjecled thei lniinri as harga;irrini
agent when it made nilateral clhar es in w* ages and work-
ing cnditio s h1 transiris ring unit eniploNcs outl of the
unit to Fresno and then bac.k into he nit without discluss
ing with the I !nion saclih nl:ttCl'rs iais.s stesvt I;i and living
expenses, senioritN, Corrsider.iiolls. ld i qher \Volkirig con-
ditions.
Firally, Respodent rejicted the li non ais tIc exclusive
bargaining rcprcsetiilt!'c s lcll it t'tlse t respond to tie
I Inion's written request to harglain li- Clhr.llar 1 1 977 i thi
lface of this negalivr stancel. (VitI r Is l ard aRrgailling bh
thire Union were an obvious iulilit I l'idei these CirClnl-
stances t holdl that a reslpondcnlt ,ight to be Jtlic\cld oF its
obligation to recogniie lid ;iargaill with thire UInion siould
completely fustrate hc Ipolicy th At lie \ tl cciourage "the
plractice anild procedilre ot' collecti\ c :rgaining" sec Sc-
tion I of te Act) all rarld :ii cllillo er f,r its egregious
intransigence, swhich constituted a stionlg prsuasie 'rce
to cause union defection. When Rcspondlcnt's responswe Wias
negative to the positive dictates of Section 8(a)t5), a viola-
tion of tilte section was conilitted 'lihus, Respondent's first
defense is dismissed. Its second decfcIse is dilenied s is iis
motion to dismiss the complaint i its entirety, in that
would require in this case the religtigarion of' issues which
were litigated in the rpresentirlii case (14 R( 824). Its
third defense is not supported by the crecdible fiacts in the
record' and its fourth dcfense is ininatcrjal in hat it has
6 "Ihe Nional I tahbor Relions Act milnksi II the lhl' if the enilployel
bargalin colclivelh: with ith chosen representatives t his IcIllpliy'cs tlhe
obligation bing chis,e. see §9(a) .if the -cl. 29 S § lh9 il it c.cts
'the negalie dts o reat witih io other.' Sir/ Phorl'o Supli ( rp r:lmit
v. NI R, 321 U S 678. 683. e 4 114944)
I t is ditlilil t i cr t ltltlc a llli'i piIIillfzi'i ri;,e It Respnd,) lenlt li;(
the :nion a trtred ilo hargaii tiha irihe I lim's filing >t the S(.ia(i unlaiir
labor practic chairge i w lt l i wi s alleged thit RcsR odmiidei hls rt'iucd t,
hargain sltIe :lilnite ilr 'i i977. the dile ot thta certifi ution N rcelq cs to
b.argairn is nimpltrlit il he iling of an 8i O 1t hi!,r} c
s See .i1per Jobbirg ( rsparno 222 NI R 817 ( 19'76)
i9 ()e Iq ucsti i ahanlldlTIlenl ei tie I iIsa iNlleres i lcircsclillg
the caplo cis i tit: i'Mllgiillllri till ;cc . !lt.llft.,,ri illr ,, ' yr
Orltan., /he. - ,t ?r, fi r r ' f 't- t/ NiS/ nikr-rdnr iS (icriter 'lt
NlRBti 1467 t{YT1977) whul [lr It. [ ,, l 1 t1 1I ti.li 1 tl[lell- 1iI tl , 111 e ,!
erllploiee lights iN fihing Intir r 1:lb,) pl t. I , i N , i, s ln lil il]e Si iit :Ib
(IlonnilTl or tack of icrcti
heen iunid that. at all material times herein. Respondent
was hound to recognize and bhargain w ith the nion. Ac-
-ordinflI-, it is toulInd that (as alleged in the complaint):
At all tinies material herein. Respondent has refused
and i reflisiig to Iecognll/e 111i I rlioI as the collectise-
bargaining representative oft emplo ees in the unit
lounid appropriate] . . . and o bargainl collectively
with the l rnion Ifir a c0ollective-hargliniIg agreement
tci5 eriig ellplo es in tilt unit li itfil ;apprropriate]...
and that Resp londeit hlis \Iolated Section 8(a)(5) of the
,ct.
It is further fiund til the inlirm;ation requested bh the
iniil on on :ehbrl-lrs 28. 1978. clearly related to the ternis
anid inditions of ilempioymicnt of the hbargaining unit em-
poyecs aid, therelore, was rele.ant alnd necessary to the
I nimon in exercising its f'unctions as the collective-hbargain-
ig representative of the ullt emphilovees." Respondent's re-
t'isal to turnis the Inion wisilh the rqucsted infoirmation
Alddititally vioired i' lon irt i( X ttiad i ( ) the Act.
('()N( I t 'I )NS () AI .\
I I ie 1 [nion is a abhor organiiization within the meaning
it ' hc \ ( t
2. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of' the Act arnd it will effectuate
the purposes of the Act for jurisdiction to he exercised
herein.
3. All production anl inaitenance employees, including
assemblers maintenance mechanics, quiialit control em-
ploe .es, general laborers ani lead persons employed at Re-
sp'rilett's Palrlra. Missouri. ilacility, excluding office
clericil and prrfessiornili emnpliees, gulards and supervisors
as definci in the Act. constitute a unit appropriate for col-
lective bhrg;linirng wxitlin the mceaning of' 9(h) of the Actl."
4. Pursuant to an election held in ('Case 14 R(' 8247, on
1Januarr 14. 1977, a mnajurity of the employees of Respon-
dent in the unit described above, designated or selected the
I 'trionl as their represelntative for the purposes otf collective
bargaining with Respondent.
5. At ll titmes ince JanLuar, 14, 1977, the IUnion has
been a nd is now. the representative for purposes of' collec-
tie bargdining of' the emplo yees i the unit described
aborve, alld, hv irtue of Section 9 a) of the Act, has been,
and is now, the cxclusive representative of' all emplo(yees in
said unit t'for the purposes of collective bargaining with re-
spect to ates o pay, ages hours of emplolmenrt, and
other terirs and conditions of' emplo ryment.
6. B refusing to recognizc and bargain collectively with
the I tlion and hb refusing to tfurnish the Uion with the
intilmatiiln it requested on iFehbriutr 28, 1978, Respondent
h s engcitigi i anl is engaging in tunfair labor practices
ithilln thie niieanlig o1' Sectim 8X(a)(5) anld () of the Act:
7. Ihe aloresaid ulair lahbor practices aft'ect commerce
within thie riearning of Section 2(6) anid 7) of' the Act.
[1 -I il he nit qiestir llo , the g ellcr:li 'tiligltlO[l i irl enilTp, r to
.rO ldc 1ntor -lratioll thit is nlietdei h\ itc hllgilmlrig reprsentLatls t teor e
)r-ope' scritnl i i thls fltullc " , H51 R/ I, .. i. , slu Irrni i l 385 S
,1t2, 41 ,1i6 (197
I" It l ti i;lC llt ' Ill 1,h IIIJ .IllllllltPu
118
AMERI(AN SA:1t"FY tQIII'PMINI (()RPORAI()N
Il R 111)o
Hlaving fullnd that Resporndent lhas engaged in ulnl'.ti' 1.-
bhor practices violative o Section 8;)(5) alld ( I) oft IC \c t,
it is recommended thail it cac lte rd desist heictromi .nd
that it take certain altirnlliie ic ti i siiigned ito cfitClUilit
the policies of tile Act. It is fillCrti lcl 0inilelcnled. !ll Ordic:
to remedy the violation toiind heien. that Resprlldcllt ICC
ognize and bargain , Ith the I on as the exclusivc h lrgain-
ing representative of the enliplioes inll the appropriate unit
concerning any term or coilition ot emnlploment. or
change thereof (as to which it W\ould h ave been req uired to
bargain had Respondent asstiried its haigamining dliut 1
January 14, 1977, and Ilheratter ) tor a period ot I erar
from the date it first coniplls ittl the ()rtci- io harglii
herein, in confrinrit witl Sctiion 8(a;))I o t the Acl. tani
emnbod in a signed agreemiiient an iderl-stalidintl raclhd.
(See Lamar t lo'l/, 137 NlRB 171 ( 1902). 14() NL Ri 226
(1962), Hoi llarm. loultr lnduirie. s ., 189 N l RB 663
(1971}). Respondent shall also suppl tlhe inlOrmatijon i-
quested by the llnion o(n ehbrl-a- 28. 1977.
Upon the basis ot the fregoing findings ot tclt. concil-
sions of law, and the entirc record in this proceeding, aid
pursuant to Section 10)(c ot the enltC 1eo rd in tl-is po-
ceeding, and pursuant o Section (1( I) f 1the Xct, I ilehx
issue the fillo ing cconimnsicdlli
()RL)DIR t
Ihe Respondent, Ainerianl Saltt tI I.lipincllt ( 'lOls "'I.-
tion, Paliml ra. Missouri. is otficei. sigeellts, successors. andl
ailssigns, shall:
1. ('ease anti desisl lonl:
(a) Retusinig to rccogilize arid hiicliai witih I lodge N
822, ]nterniltiolI;l \Associ;itioi tof M:chlinist antd Ac ,spae
Workers. Ai ((). ais tile exclusive barga iing ! ercsen u
ative of the emplo \ees in thile oli il1ing apprlpllatC uniit
All prodtlutilon aii mainte i ance cmplloces. Nr ll! l-
ing sscrnbleis Tlnainenlance IliechaliiCs. Il-uit (oln
trol employees, general iaborers ad leiad ersons cm-
ploed at the Respondent's Palmia. MNissomi. iilit\.
excliiding sflice clerical and protefssiol:!i emploces.
guards. and supervisors ;i dlinld m the ct
(h) f-ailing and rellusing to sapl'l > iriiiinotri oncern-
ing tunlit clplosecs reqteled h! the I 11111l 111 it, lecter
datellt I:ebruarl 28. 178.
t(c) In anL like ( raelted ninlx'[ ilnterielrmg w iith re
straip.nig, o' Cosel'Cill elnlplsccs ill tc (e. ci'sl (,! s e I itlh
guarantecid them i Sectioni 7 t tlc Ac.
2 lakc the ii ',( ing atlinlatixc i lo n x iic l w ill es -
itjiite the [ ,tlicic> ill tit ;\It
(a) RecognislC alld bargaill ollcticxE xNt11 tile .tICs.Lid
ullion as exlusivc reprcscnatiaLse *, Its eniploces's ill thi
abhoe-described apprsopriate br;lIgliiiig nilt lld l eillho)dx
1 Ini the cset cl .i' ic d ..e...pI -Sl Si'r i .ci ' 1I.i ' i ihe
Rules and Rcgulaillon, ot [he N'.sll.l I h>o Rit,.I i s ild ih fillndmy.
ConljUMOissl, .:idi rts, liscide u ()its irein s i l i ll. I To. 1 ltdl i1l ISCt I , l 4F
if the Rule, til ResCLgLsWitL. I' .v - p-Ied :i i'hv [ , .ud a c .
filldiIgs t JllCJellMOI 1' ; ti r.l r .s mJ :!i A h , ,l . l l; b .. d i.! 5 t. is'
,aiN d fCI 1I :il ,1 i ' ....s
in a signed agreemelit al; uniderstanding reaclhed in ac-
cordance with the rcoiilcmmendations set I;,rth in the Seetion
of this L)ecision etiItle 'I he Reined'."
(h) Suppl]' to the Iilon intrnimaiolln concerning the
i11:1111. tddlSlr c s sex. i, .1) ssl titi ti(i rite oi 5,0 and ,c-
slioliT\ daite Its c plllts 'c' 1 lh athe [0ploj/l tst bilgililill i
mijiut aini) t'uisii i.'l Iotn \ith i a cs st tI me tll-rill
health Ilk vL'tCIt' c le pi[sI .lll t' :il iatic hn said Cellplo Cecs is
e!l as all fr-ici hbenelit, heil egl ilted
(c) Pst at i tilw at IlisL N1i:- Es;outri. copies o the
attaclihed notice iirkicdl Appendiv'l ('opies ot saild no-
tice. r(, nded ,; tile Reionl [)ircI.tor olr Region 14 af'ter
ICil dl s PlilctJ It', [Resp, oins representative. slhall e
psted b h t lllncs! ell'i lp)ii rl 'cept thrcot nl d ht' nlilln-
htilleCl [\ it tir 61) Ctrlse¢i¢ t1c 1i',s 5 !l Crelifle i l icsspicii-
sils laces .inllidulg ,ll a11 .i'slt c 11itices t citiploses
ier tlstoillilsi] po),,tCd. Rcas! .alc stcps hall he takel hx
Responident to ilUlse hilt said noltieS Ltic lot aItered, dle-
taced., or coscred h\ n oll mat lial.
I(l Nit!t\ tilc Regisonil .)jiectui m Rto 14. iii rit-
ing. within 20 days rom the dlite oft' Ihi ()rdtr hit steps
RespOlndcllt ias laken o Ciiii1'l
x
, ' lsC-i i,\ h
I In ti i n'L. t ci - l ll' ( I l s cd t Lt illes Stateis s
Ot1l t Oi '\[~?t';ti. [[;l t1 'dill it tile Ji!L 'i[ ! t b-. t/rk'!l A IIle
N.i[Lo.lka] i .lfimf Rrl.i llRtrJ" sil.,ll] [i.'.i~.t "Jos' t }i n M,-;.ifi[ .I Jtiigllnt
1 [I Cl 1.ltcd S.l;C Court . \ppcdl s I III,:iTml .i1 (I)dl o' it Naile ll
I.',ls Reiltsr1, 13is "
\N'l 't NI )I\
Nt) I II I t 'M'i I Is
fit I i ( Ftt) I ti i s It I II
N \I 1('. 's A I ' Iisi)i }.i I\ is)\S B ) RI
Xl '\lC-.'' )I Ol I'IltCd sl .ICs (Os\eCllCiii
V\\t i\ i i \Is I ci I. l~, ICC ccslsZcs ;iIsnd lI ll gn tith
I.ocal \ . 2. I 11teLi.a oial -\Sstclt!IolH si Mach\ili is ts
and .- \':vospacc ,t 'i kit'. '\1' ('!]). Is lt stxCiiIIC
rcpi[esciI;lls\t- ,t OLit Chil 'CCS 11i the Ihll].C< [; SlL[ri ]) lil ! 1[?l 01i
t . it.' , ill 1 1 ! IhIl '. t ,:S icqtilesticd 1\ lt ' I lisll.
VI} il l \ i ll lls il,s . i/r ;Cltt 1s ilTl I/[ ute re
ith, fcrvilll .r O CsTs'CeC l Ili)Il sees ill the exel. se
o theiti i lits N gllAl I!scI ihci ' Sectinill 7 the Na-
t]oslll] il RsJt[ i s 't s .c is i;tri'icded.
W: XI II I Ccss!l, C I 'iI 1 ll h s11etI CC ic\ \ iti lIC
Ilhot 'l) I I}1o! Is Ill ' C ktI ]M\C rI " I Cl;It tI\C o our elll-
Ii,,'s . ti L' IL: iltl l t i tlt1 :itrxCi
\ ' \ t I Ii-'J,. it Iis Ii li cIlI i l I ,o icerl li g
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the name, address, sex, job classification, rate of pay,
and seniority date for employees in the appropriate
bargaining unit and will furnish the Union with a copy
of the current health and welfare program available to
the employees as well as all fringe benefits being
granted.
AMERICAN SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORPORATION
120