Challenge-Cook Brothers Of Ohio, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 13, 1990

299 N.L.R.B. 434 (N.L.R.B. 1990)

434 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Challenge-Cook Brothers of Ohio, Inc. and United
Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC.
Cases 8-CA-15391, 8-CA-16250, 8-CA-
21118, 8-CA-21271, 8-CA-21383, and 8-CA-
21486
August 13, 1990
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS CRACRAFT, DEVANEY, AND
OVIATT
On June 15, 1989, the National Labor Relations
Board issued a Supplemental Decision and Order
Remanding The Board, inter aim, granted the
General Counsel's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment and remanded the compliance proceed-
ing in Cases 8-CA-15391 and 8-CA-16250 to the
Regional Director ' On September 15, 1989, the
Regional Director for Region 8 issued a second
order consolidating the unfair labor practice pro-
ceeding in Cases 8-CA-21271, 8-CA-21383, and 8-
CA-21486 with the prior consolidated unfair labor
practice and compliance proceeding referred to
above, and an amended consolidated complaint and
notice of hearing against the Respondent alleging
that it has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
National Labor Relations Act After being proper-
ly served copies of the amended consolidated com-
plaint, the Respondent filed an answer to the
amended consolidated complaint on September 28,
1989 Subsequently, the Respondent filed a bank-
ruptcy petition under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy
Code Thereafter, the trustee m the bankruptcy
proceeding, the Respondent, and the General
Counsel entered into a written agreement in which
the Respondent withdrew its answer to the back-
pay specification and its answer to the amended
consolidated complaint The agreement noted that
the General Counsel would file a Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment, and that all parties retain their
rights under 11 U S C § 502 2
On May 10, 1990, the General Counsel filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment On May 14, 1990,
the Board issued an order transferring the proceed-
ing to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why
the motion should not be granted The Respondent
and the trustee in the bankruptcy proceeding failed
to file a response The allegations in the motion are
therefore undisputed
'295 NLRB 435 Earlier, on August 23, 1988, the Regional Director
for Region 8 had Issued an order consolidating an unfair labor practice
proceeding in Case 8-CA-21118 with the backpay proceeding in Cases
8-CA-15391 and 8-CA-16250 The unfair labor practice case was not In-
cluded in the General Counsel's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
2 The provision of the Bankruptcy Code dealing with allowance of
claims
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment of
the Backpay Specification
Section 102 56 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tionss provides that if an answer is not filed within
21 days from service of the backpay specification,
the Board may find the allegations of the specifica-
tion to be true and enter such an order as may be
appropriate The specification states that the Re-
spondent
shall file an Answer to said Specification
within twenty-one (21) days from the service
hereof, and that to the extent that such
Answer fails to deny allegations of the Specifi-
cation in the manner required under the
Board's Rules and Regulations, and the failure
to do so is not adequately explained, such alle-
gations shall be deemed to be admitted to be
true and the Respondent shall be precluded
from introducing any evidence controverting
them
The Respondent's withdrawal of its answer has the
same effect as a failure to file an answer 4 Accord-
ingly, we find the allegations of the backpay speci-
fication to be true and grant the General Counsel's
Motion for Summary Judgment on the backpay
specification
We conclude that the backpay due the employ-
ees listed in the backpay specification is as stated in
the backpay specification computations, plus inter-
est computed in the manner set forth in New Hori-
zons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), and
we shall order the Respondent to pay those
amounts
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment of
the Amended Consolidated Complaint
Section 102 20 of the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions provides that the allegations in the complaint
shall be deemed admitted if an answer is not filed
within 14 days from service of the complaint,
unless good cause is shown The amended consoli-
dated complaint states that unless an answer is filed
within 14 days of service, "all of the allegations in
the Amended Consolidated Complaint shall be
deemed to be admitted to be true and may be so
found by the Board" The Respondent's withdraw-
'Formerly Sec 102 54 The Board amended its Rules governing com-
pliance proceedings effective November 13, 1988 The substance of
former Sec 102 54 has been incorporated Into Sec 102 56 as revised
4 Matshn Transport, 274 NLRB 529 (1985)
299 NLRB No 53
CHALLENGE-COOK BROS OF OHIO

435
al of its answer has the same effect as failure to file
an answer 5 Accordingly, we grant the General
Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment on the
amended consolidated complaint
On the entire record, the Board makes the fol-
lowing
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JURISDICTION
The Respondent, an Ohio corporation, with an
office and place of business in Bryan, Ohio, has
been engaged in the manufacture of industrial laun-
dry dryers and cement mixers Annually, until
ceasing operations about August 14, 1988, in the
course and conduct of its business operations, the
Respondent purchased and received at its Bryan,
Ohio facility products, goods, and materials valued
in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside
the State of Ohio We find that the Respondent is
an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and
that the Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
II ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The following employees of the Respondent con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act
All production and maintenance employees at
Respondent's Bryan, Ohio facility, including
shipping and receiving clerks, jamtonal em-
ployees, partsmen and utilitymen, but exclud-
ing inspectors, chief inspectors, material con-
trol clerks, draftsmen, office clerical employ-
ees and professional employees, guards and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act
About August 8, 1974, and again about October
23, 1981, a majority of the employees in the unit by
secret-ballot elections designated and selected the
Union as their representative for the purposes of
collective bargaining with the Respondent About
August 15, 1974, and again about November 2,
1981, the Regional Director for Region 8 certified
the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the unit At all
times since 1974, the Union, by virtue of Section
9(a) of the Act, has been, and is, the exclusive rep-
resentative of the employees in the unit
The most recent collective-bargammg agreement
between the Respondent and the Union was effec-
tive from November 21, 1987, until June 30, 1988
5 Maishn Transport, supra
By written agreement, the collective-bargaining
agreement was extended until September 30, 1988
During the months of April, May, and June
1988, the Respondent and the Union met for the
purpose of negotiating the effects of the Respond-
ent's transfer of its cement mixer operation to Cal-
houn, Georgia During this period, the Respondent
refused to bargain over the effects of Respondent's
transfer of operation unless and until the Union
demonstrated to the Respondent's satisfaction that
the unit employees had been affected by the reloca-
tion of the cement mixer operation
About July 15, 1988, the Respondent terminated
a pension plan for the unit that was provided for in
the collective-bargaining agreement The pension
plan relates to the unit employees' terms and condi-
tions of employment and is a mandatory subject of
collective bargaining The Respondent engaged in
these acts and conduct without prior notice to the
Union, without having afforded the Union an op-
portunity to bargain with respect to these acts and
the effects of these acts, and without the consent of
the Union
Since about August 10, 1988, the Union has re-
quested the Respondent to furnish the Union with
the followmg information
I When did the Company first consider
closmg and/or selling this operation ? What
factors caused it to consider such a possibility?
If any of these factors relate to the financial
condition of the Company, what, if any, data
has the Company relied upon? If the Company
has relied upon such data, the Union requests
that it be furnished with copies of such data,
or the opportunity to inspect and copy such
data
II What steps were taken in reviewing
whether this operation should be sold and/or
closed? In this regard, were the services of any
governmental or private agencies or consult-
ants utilized? If so, what are the names and ad-
dresses of all of the governmental and/or pri-
vate agencies or consultants utilized?
III Have any reports been prepared by the
Company or by any outside agencies or con-
sultants, concerning the sale and/or closing? If
so, the Union requests that it be furnished
copies of such reports or the opportunity to in-
spect and copy such reports
IV When was the decision made to sell
and/or close this operation? Who, employed
by the Company, was responsible for the deci-
sion[?] Will any of the operations currently
performed at this facility be contracted out for
436 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
performance at any other location(s)? If so,
where? To whom?
V If this work is to be contracted out, will
there be an increase in the number of union
and/or non-union employees actively at work
at other company facilities as a result ? If so,
please identify the numbers of union and non-
union employees at each such facility who will
be hired and/or recalled from layoff as a
result Also, provide the Umon with the wage
rates of Company employees working at such
facilities, and copies of the collective-bargain-
ing agreements, if any, for such facilities, as
well as copies of the pension and insurance
agreements
VI What wntten materials have been relat-
ed [sic] upon by the Company in making the
tentative decision to sell and/or close this op-
eration? The Umon requests that it be fur-
nished with copies of all wntten materials
upon which the Company has relied, or the
opportunity to inspect and copy such materi-
als
VII Have any written or oral agreements
been made between representatives of the
Company and outside firms or agencies in con-
nection with the prospective sale and/or clos-
ing, mcluding but not limited to, any written
or oral agreements contractmg for the sale
and/or closing of the plant or for removal of
equipment from the plant? If so, the Union re-
quests that it be furnished with copies of all
such written agreements, or the opportunity to
inspect and copy such agreements
VIII If the Company has entered into a sale
agreement with respect to this facility, the
Union requests that it be provided with a
copy
IX The Union requests that the Company
provide it with copies (or date where applica-
ble) of the followmg
(a) The qualified USWA/Challenge Cook
Bros Pension Plan, any amendments, and
the summary plant [sic] description
(b) Active pension plan participants cate-
gorized by age, seniority and credited serv-
ice (vesting and benefit)
(c) Retired participants categorized by
date of retirement, age, credited service at
retirement, amount and type of monthly
benefit
(d) Annual company contributions to the
pension plan with schedule of dates and
level of contributions from January 1, 1983
(e) Three most recent actuarial evalua-
tions
(f) Three most recent Department of
Labor 5500 Forms, including Schedule B
(g) Three latest trustees, or if the plan is
administered by an insurance company, then
the three latest annual reports from the in-
surance company
(h) A statement indicating any major
changes in fund accounting procedures or
assumptions which have occurred during the
last three years
(i) Current insurance agreements and sum-
mary plan descriptions
The information requested by the Union, as de-
scribed above, is necessary for, and relevant to, the
Union's performance of its function as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the unit
Since about August 10, 1988, the Respondent has
failed and refused to furnish the Union with this in-
formation About August 14, 1988, the Respondent
put into effect an agreement to sell its Bryan, Ohio
facility and ceased operations The effects of the
sale and closure of the Bryan, Ohio facility relate
to the unit employees' terms and conditions of em-
ployment and are mandatory subjects of collective
bargaining The Respondent engaged in the acts
and conduct described above without prior notice
to the Union, without having afforded the Union
an opportunity to bargain with respect to the ef-
fects of these acts, and has failed and refused to re-
spond to the Union's request, on August 12, 1988,
for such bargaining
By these acts and conduct, the Respondent has
failed and refused, and is failing and refusing, to
bargain collectively and m good faith with the
Union in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
Act
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 By refusing to bargain with the Union over
the effects of its decision to relocate its cement
mixer operation from Bryan, Ohio, to Calhoun,
Georgia, unless and until the Union demonstrated
to its satisfaction that the unit employees had been
affected by the relocation, the Respondent has en-
gaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
2 By unilaterally terminating a pension plan that
was provided for in the collective-bargaining
agreement, the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act
3 By failing to provide the Union with adequate
pnor notice and an opportunity to bargain over the
CHALLENGE-COOK BROS OF OHIO 437
effects of selling its Bryan, Ohio facility and ceas-
ing operations, and by refusing to furnish the
Union with information relevant to such bargain-
ing, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged
in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it
to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act
The Respondent shall be required to bargain
with the Union over the effects of its decision to
relocate its cement mixer operation without requir-
ing the Union to demonstrate that the unit employ-
ees have been affected 6 The Respondent shall also
be required to bargain with the Union over the ef-
fects of selling its Bryan, Ohio facility and ceasing
operations, and to furnish the Union with the re-
quested information We shall accompany our
order to bargain with a limited backpay require-
ment designed to make whole the employees for
losses sustained as a result of the violation, and to
re-create in some practicable manner a situation in
which the parties' bargaining position is not entire-
ly devoid of economic consequences for the Re-
spondent We shall do so in this case by requiring
the Respondent to pay backpay to its employees in
a manner similar to that required in Transmarme
Navigation Corp, supra Thus, the Respondent shall
pay employees backpay at the rate of their normal
wages when last in the Respondent's employ from
5 days after the date of this Second Supplemental
Decision and Decision and Order until the occur-
rence of the earliest of the following conditions (1)
the date the Respondent bargains to agreement
with the Union on those subjects pertaining to the
effects on its employees of its decision to sell its
Bryan, Ohio facility and cease operations, (2) a
bona fide impasse in bargaining, (3) the failure of
the Union to request bargaining withm 5 days of
this decision, or to commence negotiations within 5
days of the Respondent's notice of its desire to bar-
gain with the Union, or (4) the subsequent failure
of the Union to bargain in good faith, but in no
event shall the sum paid to any of these employees
exceed the amount the affected employees would
have earned as wages from the date on which he
6 See 282 NLRB 21 (1986) This is not, basically, a new violation and
we do not order a new Transmanne Navigation Corp remedy (170 NLRB
389 (1968)), but order the Respondent to pay those amounts listed in the
backpay specification and, as indicated, to bargain without requirmg a
demonstration of consequences on the unit
or she was laid off to the time he or she was re-
called or secured equivalent employment else-
where, or the date on which the Respondent shall
have offered to bargain, whichever occurs sooner,
provided, however, that in no event shall this sum
be less than these employees would have earned
for a 2-week period at the rate of their normal
wages when last in the Respondent's employ
We shall further order the Respondent to imme-
diately reestablish the pension plan as provided for
in the collective-bargaining agreement, and make
whole its unit employees for terminating the pen-
sion plan, including paying any amounts unlawfully
withheld, making pension contributions that have
not been paid and that would have been paid in the
absence of the Respondent's unlawful discontinu-
ance of the plan, 7 and by reimbursing unit employ-
ees for any expenses ensuing from the Respondent's
failure to make any payments as set forth in Kraft
Plumbing & Heating, 252 NLRB 891 fn 2 (1980),
enfd mem 661 F 2d 94.0 (9th Cir 1981), to be
computed in the manner set forth in Ogle Protection
Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), with interest to be
computed in the manner prescribed in New Hori-
zons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987)
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that
the Respondent, Challenge-Cook Brothers of Ohio,
Inc. Bryan, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall pay those employees listed in
"Appendix B" those amounts listed next to their
names, plus interest accrued to the date of payment
in the manner set forth in this decision, minus tax
withholdings required by Federal and state law,
and pay United Steelworkers of America, AFL-
CIO-CLC the dues deductions listed in "Appendix
C" on behalf of those employees listed, plus inter-
est
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Respondent,
Challenge-Cook Brothers of Ohio, Inc , Bryan,
Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain in good faith with the
Union concerning the effects of the relocation of
7 Because the case involving the pension plan arose in 1988, and the
Respondent subsequently filed its bankruptcy petition, the Bankruptcy
Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984, Pub L 98-353, Stat
333 (1984), is controlling rather than NLRB v Bildisco & Bddisco, 465
US 513 (1984) Consequently, we have not limited the Respondent's
make-whole liability for its 8(aX5) violations to the prepennon period
See Barney Goldstein, Inc. 288 NLRB 92 (1988)
Because the provisions of employee benefit plan agreements are van-
able and complex, we leave to the compliance stage the question whether
the Respondent must pay any additional amounts into the benefit plan in
order to satisfy our "make-whole" remedy Merryweather Optical Co. 240
NLRB 1213 (1979)
438 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the cement mixer operation from Bryan, Ohio, to
Calhoun, Georgia, without requinng the Union to
demonstrate that the employees in the following
appropriate unit have been affected
All production and maintenance employees at
Employer's Bryan, Ohio facility, including
shipping and receiving clerks, jamtonal em-
ployees, partsmen and utihtymen, but exclud-
ing inspectors, chief inspectors, matenal con-
trol clerks, draftsmen, office clerical employ-
ees and professional employees, guards and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act
(b) Refusing to bargain in good faith with the
Union concerning the effects of selling the Bryan,
Ohio facility and ceasing operations
(c) Refusing to provide the Union with relevant
information to enable the Union to discharge its
function as exclusive representative of the unit em-
ployees
(d) Terminating the pension plan provided for in
the collective-bargaining agreement without the
consent of the Union
(e) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of the nghts guaranteed them by Section 7
of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative action neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) On request, bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive representative of the unit
employees concerning the effects of the relocation
of the cement mixer operation from Bryan, Ohio,
to Calhoun, Georgia, without requiring the Union
to demonstrate that the unit employees have been
affected
(b) On request, bargain collectively with the
Union concerning the effects of selling the Bryan,
Ohio facility and ceasing operations
(c) Pay the employees who were laid off due to
the decision to sell the Bryan, Ohio facility and
cease operations, their normal wages for the period
set forth in the remedy section of this decision
(d) On request, furnish the Union with the rele-
vant information requested on or about August 10,
1988, to enable the Union to discharge its function
as exclusive representative of the unit employees
(e) On request, reestablish the pension plan as
provided for in the collective-bargaining agree-
ment
(f) Make whole all unit employees for any losses
they may have suffered as a result of termmatmg
the pension plan as provided for in the collective-
bargaining agreement in the manner set forth in the
remedy section of this decision
(g) Preserve and, on request, make available to
the Board or its agents for examination and copy-
mg, all payroll records, social security payment
records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order
(h) Mail an exact copy of the attached notice
marked "Appendix A" 8 to the Union and to all the
employees who were laid off as a result of the relo-
cation of the cement mixer operation and/or as a
result of selling and ceasing operations of the
Bryan, Ohio facility Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 8,
after being signed by the Respondent's authonzed
representative, shall be mailed by the Respondent
immediately upon receipt to each of the laid-off
employees
(i) Notify the Regional Director in wntmg
within 20 days from the date of this Order what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply
8 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 Nation-
al 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"
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 the National Labor Relations Act
and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain in good faith
with United Steelworkers of Amenca, AFL-CIO-
CLC concerning the effects of the relocation of the
cement mixer operation from Bryan, Ohio, to Cal-
houn, Georgia, without requiring the Union to
demonstrate that the employees in the following
appropriate unit have been affected
All production and maintenance employees at
Employer's Bryan, Ohio facility, including
shipping and receiving clerks, janitorial em-
ployees, partsmen and utilitymen, but exclud-
ing inspectors, chief inspectors, matenal con-
trol clerks, draftsmen, office clerical employ-
ees and professional employees, guards and su-
pervisors as define in the Act
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain in good faith
with the Union concerning the effects of selling the
Bryan, Ohio facility and ceasing operations
WE WILL NOT refuse to furnish the Union with
relevant information to enable the Union to dis-
charge its function as exclusive representative of
the unit employees
WE WILL NOT terminate the pension plan provid-
ed for in the collective-bargaining agreement with-
out the consent of the Union
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer-
cise of the nghts guaranteed you by Section 7 of
the Act
WE WILL, on request, bargain collectively with
the Umon as the exclusive representative of the
unit employees concerning the effects of the relo-
cation of the cement mixer operation from Bryan,
Ohio, to Calhoun, Georgia, without requinng the
Union to demonstrate that the unit employees have
been affected
WE WILL, on request, bargain collectively with
the Union concerning the effects of selling the
Bryan, Ohio facility and ceasing operations
WE WILL pay those employees who were laid
off due to our decision to sell our Bryan, Ohio fa-
allay and cease operations, their normal wages for
a period required by the National Labor Relations
Board
WE WILL, on request, furnish the Union with rel-
evant mformation requested on or about August 10,
1988, to enable the Union to discharge its function
as exclusive representative of the unit employees
WE WILL, on request, reestablish the pension
plan as provided for in the collective-bargaining
agreement
WE WILL make whole all unit employees for any
losses they may have suffered as a result of our ter-
mmatmg the pension plan as provided for in the
collective-bargaining agreement, plus interest
CHALLENGE-COOK BROTHERS
OF OHIO, INC
APPENDIX
Claimant Backpay
Alexander, D $3,914 46
Baerlm, L 1,085 38
Barber, C 6,262 66
Barnes, J 10,620 36
Barton, K 663 68
Baughman, P 6,077 94
Bentley, R 1,547 72
Bernath, M 556 72
Bowers, B 3,929 41
Bowers, C 3,063 81
Bnner, D 936 78
Burus, R 11,363 20
Buttermore, D 17,194 67
Calvin, R 4,436 31
Campbell, W 10,629 93
CHALLENGE-COOK BROS OF OHIO 439
Carpenter, W . 790 48
Carr, C 10,255 88
Carroll, S 17,494 97
Clark, W 8,92497
Clemans, D 3,225 26
Cogswell, E 10,838 70
Connolly, F 2,128 27
Cook, D 1,865 24
Coolman, R 10,551 65
Crites, J 3,378 71
Culler, R 1,282 91
Degroff, M 10,138 45
Dobson, R 7,52445
Dohm, R 9,194 62
Dow, R 5,071 40
Echler, W 10,847 37
Esquibel, F 3,63609
Fee, H 5,780 85
Fix, T 8,332 92
Flory, C 9,396 89
Fox, J 9,13674
Geiger, D 5,700 19
Gentit, D 10,236 29
Gentit, P 5,978 03
Gilcher, R 16,789 54
Gonzales, J 9,455 59
Grunden, R 11,299 74
Hackworth, B 8,000 92
Hageman, W 13,022 11
Hanenkratt, C 7,083 63
Harding, W 10,560 33
Hart, H 9,977 52
Hartsock, R 3,23042
Hausch, C 5,61943
Henry, H 2,196 53
Houck, N 10,421 29
Houk, R 5,25743
Jackson, T 14,048 56
Jones, W
Keck, J
3,775 08
3,498 91
Keller, V 4,975 70
Keller, W 10,664 73
Knepper, A 556 72
Knepper, W 10,882 79
Kmsely, J 13,414 34
Koch, J 10,403 33
Kosier, C 9,666 95
Krontz, S 4,226 31
Laney, G 5,071 40
Lange, H 556 72
Lilly, C 10,629 93
Mapes, G 10,421 15
March, T 10,516 84
Masters, G 10,977 88
May, N 5,689 01
Miller, J 4,256 54
440 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mobley, G 5,543 96 Carpenter, W 9 20
Mollett, L 4,679 95 Carr, C 119 32
Petre, D 6,191 09 Carroll, S 203 55
Pierce, G 8,959 76 Clark, W 103 83
Pierce, W 10,377 66 Clemans, D 156 99
Pike, G, Jr 3,642 67 Cogswell, E 126 10
Pollock, T 11,578 10 Connolly, F 24 76
Rebeck, T 601 01 Cook, D 118 77
Reed, H 10,047 11 Coolman, R 122 75
Reichle, J 4,075 59 Crites, J 61 48
Rhodes, C 10,316 78 Culler, R 31 13
Robison, W 10,690 83 Degroff, M 117 95
Roehrs, J 3,553 30 Dobson, R 87 55
Sawvel, W 6,941 60 Dohm, R 106 98
Schelling, J, Sr 6,71547 Dow, R 59 00
Schlosser, V
Schofield, F
Shaffer, T
Sholl, V
Shutts, R
Sidle, D
Siegel, J
Slone, M
Smith, D
Smith, M
Sorg, S
Stambaugh, R
547 87
2,431 87
2,338 65
9,028 28
13,029 23
6,12495
10,490 74
9,36645
570 64
1,489 50
2,305 58
5,758 60
Echler, W
Esquibel, F
Fee, H
Fix, T
Flory, C
Fox, J
Geiger, D
Gentit, D
Gentit, P
alcher, R
Gonzales, J
126 19
42 31
63 49
96 95
117 79
150 68
66 31
190 25
69 55
195 33
110 01
Stratton, C 10,490 75 Grunden, R 131 46
Towns, M 10,421 15 Hackworth, B 93 08
Traxler, L 10,073 20 Hageman, W 151 49
Tressler, R 2,907 17 Hanenkratt, C 82 41
Trott, G 568 11 Harding, W 122 87
Underwood, R 6,576 29 Hart, H 116 08
Vema, B 10,047 12 Hartsock, R 37 58
Villareal, 0 9,43640 Hausch, C 65 37
Voglesong, P 556 72 Henry, H 25 55
Wagner, D 3,524 23 Houck, N 121 23
Walker, F 11,931 36 Houk, R 61 17
Zielke, W 12,674 15 Jackson, T 163 44
Jones, W 43 92
APPENDIX C Keck, J 40 71
Claimant Dues Deduction Keller, V 57 90
Alexander, D $45 54 Keller, W 124 07
Baerlm, L 12 62 Knepper, A 648
Barber, C 72 86 Knepper, W 113 54
Barnes, J 123 54 Kmsely, J 156 05
Barton, K 8 91 Koch, J 121 03
Baughman, P 70 71 Kosier, C 112 47
Bentley, R 38 03 Krontz, S 49 17
Bernath, M 648 Laney, G 59 00
Bowers, B 59 00 Lange, H 648
Bowers, C 35 65 Lilly, C 123 67
Brmer, D 38 81 Mapes, G 121 25
Burus, R 132 20 March, T 122 36
Buttermore, D 200 05 Masters, G 127 72
Calvin, R 51 61 May, N 66 19
Campbell, W 123 67 Miller, J 49 52
CHALLENGE-COOK BROS OF OHIO 441
Mobley, G 64 50 Shutts, R 146 72
Mollett, L 54 45 Sidle, D 71 25
Petre, D 72 02 Siegel, J 122 06
Pierce, G 104 24 Slone, M 108 97
Pierce, W 120 74 Smith, D 664
Pike, 0, Jr 123 56 Smith, M 17 33
Pollock, T
Rebeck, T
Reed, H
Reichle, J
134 70
6 99
116 89
47 41
Sorg, S
Stambaugh, R
Stratton, C
Towns, M
Traxler, L
26 82
67 00
122 05
121 25
117 20
Rhodes, C 120 02 Tressler, R 33 83
Robison, W 124 37 Trott, G 661
Roehrs, J 41 34 Underwood, R 76 51
Sawvel, W 80 76 Vema, B 116 88
Schellmg, J, Sr 78 13 Villareal, 0 109 78
Schlosser, V 6 37 Voglesong, P 648
Schofield, F 28 29 Wagner, D 41 01
Shaffer, T 27 21 Walker, F 138 81
Sholl, V 105 04 Zielke, W 147 45