DaNite Sign Company

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Aug 9, 2010

09-CA-045500 (N.L.R.B. Aug. 9, 2010)

JD-46-10
Columbus, OH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
DANITE HOLDINGS, LTD Cases 9-CA-45500
D/B/A DANITE SIGN COMPANY 9-CA-45501
9-CA-45508
and 9-CA-45526
9-CA-45565
SHEET METAL WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
LOCAL UNION NO. 24
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL
UNION NO. 683
Eric A. Taylor, Esq., for the General Counsel.
J. Miles Gibson, Esq., (Wiles, Boyle, Burkholder & Bringardner Co., LPA)
Columbus, Ohio, for the Respondent.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
ARTHUR J. AMCHAN, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Columbus,
Ohio, on June 28-29, 2010. The charges were filed between March 16, and April 14, 2010. The
General Counsel issued his complaint on May 5, 2010.
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent,1 I make the following
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction
Respondent, a limited liability corporation, manufactures, installs and services
commercial signs from its production shop in Columbus, Ohio. It annually purchases and
receives goods worth in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Ohio.
Respondent 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 Unions are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

1 I have given no weight to the affidavits of Respondent’s managers which are cited as
evidence in lieu of oral testimony in support of Respondent’s case, or to the General Counsel’s
citation to the Complaint as substantive evidence.
JD-46-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2
II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
DaNite Sign Company has been in business for at least 32 years. Tim McCord,
President and Owner of DaNite Holdings, Ltd. purchased the assets of DaNite Sign Company
from its previous owner, Cal Lutz, in July 2007. He leases the building in which Respondent’s
shop is located from Mr. Lutz.
The charging parties have represented DaNite’s production employees for decades.
The bargaining unit includes shop personnel who manufacture and repair signs at Respondent’s
facility and outside crew members who install and service Respondent’s signs at customers’
locations.
McCord hired virtually all DaNite’s employees and continued to employ them pursuant to
a June 1, 2004-May 31, 2009 collective bargaining agreement with the charging parties. That
agreement states that DaNite recognizes the Unions as the sole and exclusive bargaining
agents for its Sheet Metal # 287 and IBEW # 683 members covered by the agreement, GC Exh.
9, p. 2. (emphasis added).2 Respondent’s July 2007 Production Operations Handbook, GC
Exh. 19, contains identical recognition language.
The recognition clause in the immediately previous agreement between Respondent and
the Unions, for the period June 2000-May 2004, contained identical recognition language, GC
Exh. 20. However, the 2000-2004 agreement contained a union security clause which required
all production employees to become members in good standing of the Unions within 90 days of
the start of their employment. The 2004-2009 agreement did not have a union security clause
and only a minority of unit members was members of either Union when DaNite Holdings
purchased DaNite Sign’s assets.
Neither Lutz nor McCord signed the 2004-2009 agreement.3 Nevertheless, both
complied with most or all of the provisions of the 2004-2009 agreement with respect to all
DaNite’s production employees, Tr. 14, 72-73. Both Lutz and McCord contributed to an IBEW
pension fund for those DaNite employees who were members of the IBEW.
On February 25, 2009, Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 24 informed Respondent
that it wished to reopen the collective bargaining agreement to negotiate a new contract.
McCord and his Production Manager Bruce Tokar met with Rob Durham, a business
representative from Local 24, and Dennis Mullen, a business representative from Local 683 of
the IBEW, on six occasions between May and November 2009.
On May 20, 2009 the Unions presented a proposed collective bargaining agreement to
Respondent. It included a provision requiring employees to join the Union (or pay agency fees)
within 31 days of the effective date, or after 90 days for newly hired employees. In July 2009,
Respondent filed an RM petition with the Board, seeking a determination whether the Unions
represented its employees. The Board rejected this petition.
In negotiations with the Unions, Tim McCord proposed that his employee handbook and
production and outside crew handbook be incorporated into the collective bargaining
agreement. The Unions presented a proposal to Respondent in November 2009, which

2 Sheet Metal Workers Local 287 merged with Local 24.
3 The 2000-2004 collective bargaining agreement was signed by Mr. Lutz in June 2001,
G.C. Exh. 20.
JD-46-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
3
incorporated the handbook, but retained the proposed union security clause. At the bargaining
table, union representatives told Respondent that union security was non-negotiable.
On February 18, 2010, the Unions mailed Respondent another proposal. It contained a
union security clause but gave current employees 90 days, rather than 30 to join the Unions or
pay agency fees. Respondent did not respond to this proposal.
At the start of the workday, on March 5, 2010 Tim McCord notified the two union
stewards, Kim Smith, for IBEW Local 683, and Ron Pollard for Sheet Metal Workers Local
Union 24, that he was about to convene a meeting for all employees during which he was going
to announce that he was withdrawing recognition of the Unions. This meeting started a few
minutes later. All production employees who were at work that day attended, as well as a few
office employees. McCord announced that he was withdrawing recognition from the Unions,
that he would no longer deduct union dues from the pay of employees who were members of
either union and would no longer contribute to the IBEW pension plan. He also passed out a
new production and outside crew handbook.
In this handbook, GC Exh. 3, was a provision regarding wage increases which stated:
Employee wages are based on agreement between the Employer and the Employee.
Wages are always to be kept confidential and failure to keep wages confidential can lead
to disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment.
Several weeks later, McCord distributed a revised version of Respondent’s production
and outside crew handbook which deleted this provision.
At the March 5, 2010 meeting, McCord also announced that he was forming a new
“Moving Forward Team” for consultation on a variety of issues. Among the topics within the
purview of the new Moving Forward Team were benefit options and ways to improve
employees’ work environment, R. Exh. 3.
A group also named the Moving Forward Team had met in late 2007 and early 2008 but
had been moribund for over a year by March 5, 2010. However, there is no indication that the
earlier group concerned itself with the terms and conditions of employees’ employment.
Tim McCord selected four employees: Ron Pollard, Bob Chaffin, Ray McDonnel and Ray
Tigner to be on initial the Moving Forward Team in March 2010. At the first Moving Forward
Team meeting on March 12, McCord told the four that he selected them because they were
looked up to around the shop. He also told them that he planned to rotate membership by
having the incumbent members select their successors.
The Moving Forward Team met on March 12, March 19, and April 2, 2010 at
Respondent’s shop on company time. DaNite paid team members for the time spent at these
meetings. Respondent contemplated additional sessions but did not conduct more meetings
apparently due in part to the sudden death of one of its managers.
McCord asked for input from Moving Forward Team members as to what factors he
should take into account in implementing a merit-based wage increase program. He also asked
team members for input on issues of health insurance and devising a survey to be given to all
employees regarding compensation.
JD-46-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
4
After the March 5, general meeting at which McCord announced that he was
withdrawing recognition from the Unions, he held one-on-one meetings with almost all his
employees. In the afternoon of March 5, McCord notified the Sheet Metal Workers and IBEW
business representatives that he had withdrawn recognition of their unions as the joint collective
bargaining representatives of his production employees.
Changes to the terms and conditions of the employment of Kim Smith
Kim Smith, who was the IBEW’s steward, has worked for DaNite for 25 years. At least in
recent years, his principal responsibly has been the manufacture and repair of neon signs. Use
of neon in the sign industry has diminished markedly in the last several years due to the advent
of LED lighting.
On March 17, 2010, McCord gave a memorandum to Smith. In the memo, he offered
Smith three options: work as a part time employee, work as an independent contractor or
resignation. A few days later, Smith returned the memo with a notation that he wanted to
maintain the status quo. On March 26, McCord informed Smith that he would be a regular part-
time employee effective March 29. His initial schedule was Tuesday, Thursday and Friday with
a minimum of 4 hours a day. Smith’s hourly rate was increased from $17.88 to $19 per hour
until June 2, when it changed to $19 per hour for neon work and $14 per hour for non-neon
work.
Pursuant to Smith’s new terms of employment as a regular part-time employee his
entitlement to all fringe benefits, such as health insurance and vacation pay ceased.
Union Membership amongst Respondent’s bargaining unit employees
In justifying its withdrawal of recognition from the Unions, Respondent relies solely on
the fact that a minority of its bargaining unit members were dues paying members of either the
IBEW or Sheet Metal Workers Union. In May 2009, there were seven unit members who paid
dues to one union or the other. Kim Smith, Dennis Debo and Glen Mitchell were dues paying
members of IBEW Local 683. Jim Reed, George Payne, John Hamilton and Ron Pollard were
dues paying members of the Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 24. All were still employed by
Respondent and were still dues-paying members of their union on March 5, 2010. In addition,
two union members, Bill Wheeler and Debbie Stacey, who were laid off in May 2009 had recall
rights under the collective bargaining agreement until May 2010.
As of May 18, 2009, the following seven unit members were not paying dues to either
union: Andy Gerhardt, Bob Chaffin, James Buechner, John Buck, Ray McDonnel, Ray Tigner
and Ryan Zimmerman. Two laid-off employees, Floyd Thompson and Mike Ream, with recall
rights until May 2010, also were not dues-paying members of either union.
Between May 18, 2009 and March 5, 2010, Respondent hired several other employees:
Ernie Seymour, Greg Woods, Brian (or Ron) Fisher, Josh Eckelson, Aaron Pauley, Noah Brown
and an employee whose first name is Sean. There is no evidence as to when each of these
individuals was hired and there is some question as to whether Eckelson, Pauley, Brown and
Sean had completed their ninety-day probation period as set forth in the 2004-09 collective
bargaining agreement by March 5, 2010.4 I find the evidence to be inconclusive on this issue.

4 Eckelson worked for Respondent through a temporary employment agency and then was
hired directly by DaNite. There is no evidence as to when either of these events took place.
JD-46-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
5
Brown worked three days a week and it is unclear how long Sean worked for Respondent. He
was no longer Respondent’s employee on June 29, 2010.
Analysis
Respondent was a successor employer to the previous owners of DaNite Sign Company and
succeeded to the collective bargaining obligations of the prior owners, which encompassed the
Unions’ representation of all its production employees
An employer, which buys or otherwise takes control of the unionized business of another
employer, succeeds to the collective-bargaining obligation of the seller if it is a successor
employer. For it to be a successor employer, the similarities between the two operations must
manifest a “substantial continuity between the enterprises” and a majority of its employees in an
appropriate bargaining unit must be former bargaining unit employees of the predecessor. The
bargaining obligation of a successor employer begins when it has hired a “substantial and
representative complement” of its workforce. NLRB v. Burns Security Services, 406 U.S. 272
(1972); Fall River Dyeing Corp. v. NLRB, 482 U.S. 27,107 S. Ct. 2225 (1987), affg. 775 F.2d
425 (1st Cir. 1985).
DaNite Holdings continued the operations of DaNite Sign Company in July 2007 with the
same employees, identical business operations and no change in the terms and conditions of
the employment of its production employees. Thus, it was a successor employer to DaNite Sign
Company and had a bargaining obligation with the collective bargaining representative of its
production employees.
Respondent, in its brief, contends that the Unions only represented production
employees who were members of the Unions. If the unit consisted only of union members,
Respondent was obviously not privileged to withdraw recognition since the Unions represented
100% of the unit. However, the language in the recognition clauses of the collective bargaining
agreement and the production handbook is not controlling. In granting wage increases, vacation
time etc., Respondent drew no distinction between union members and other production
employees.
Respondent granted de facto recognition to the Unions as bargaining representative of
all its production employees. It did so by applying the terms of the 2004-2009 agreement to all
production employees and by bargaining with the Unions in 2009 as bargaining representative
of all its production employees, Capitol Theatre, Capital Rock, 231 NLRB 1370, 1375-76 (1977);
Destileria Serralles, 289 NLRB 51, 57-58 (1988) enfd. 882 F. 2d 19 (lst Cir. 1989). Respondent
tacitly acknowledged that the Union represented all its production employees in its response to
the Unions’ information request at the start of bargaining in May 2009, GC Exh. 17. It provided
the Unions information about all its production employees, not just those who belonged to the
Unions. Furthermore, in its RM petition of July 9, 2009, Respondent essentially conceded that
the Unions represented all its production employees. It identified the Unions as the recognized
or certified bargaining agent of a bargaining unit composed of 17 of its production employees,
GC Exh. 2.
Respondent did not legally withdraw recognition from the Unions
All the Section 8(a)(5) issues in this case turn on whether or not Respondent was
lawfully entitled to withdraw recognition from the unions on March 5, 2010. The controlling
Board precedent in this regard is Levitz Furniture Co. of the Pacific, 333 NLRB 717 (2001).
JD-46-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
6
In Levitz Furniture, the Board overruled its long standing rule set forth in Celanese Corp.,
95 NLRB 664 (1951) and held that an employer may unilaterally withdraw recognition from an
incumbent union only where the union has actually lost the support of the majority of bargaining
unit employees. An employer can no longer lawfully withdraw recognition from an incumbent
union on the basis a good faith doubt as to the union’s majority status. Under the Levitz
Furniture rule an employer defending against a Section 8(a)(5) and (1) allegation for refusing to
bargain with an incumbent union must show that the incumbent union actually lost the support
of a majority of bargaining unit employees.
The Board has held for over forty years that, “there is no necessary correlation between
membership and the number of union supporters since no one could know many employees
who favor union bargaining do not become or remain members there of,” Terrell Machine Co.,
173 NLRB 1480, 1481 (1969). The reasons as to why there is no such correlation was
explained by Administrative Law Judge Fannie Boyls (then called a trial examiner) in Gulfmont
Hotel Company, 147 NLRB 997 (1964), enfd. 362 F. 2d 588 (5th Cir. 1966) at p. 1000-01:
Employees for various reasons unconnected with their desire to have a union represent
them, may fail to execute check off authorizations. There may be some who prefer, as a
matter of principle, to pay their financial obligations in person; there may be others who
prefer to decide when and if they can afford to spare the money for dues and fees; and
there may even be some who are willing to vote for and accept union representation but
who decide to be free riders and enjoy the expected benefits of representation without
paying for them at all. Accordingly, although the voluntary signing of check off
authorization by a majority in the unit may be considered as evidence of a union’s
majority status, the converse is not true…
The Board also disregards turnover in the bargaining unit. It adheres to a presumption
that newly hired employees support the union in the same proportion as the employees they
have replaced, Levitz Furniture, at p. 728 n. 60.
There are two court of appeals’ decisions taking the Board to task for ignoring evidence
of a decline in the number of employees authorizing dues check-off. Both cases, Tri-State
Health Service, 374 F. 3d 347 (5th Cir. 2004) and McDonald Partners, Inc., v. NLRB, 331 NLRB
1002 (D.C. Cir. 2003) were decided pursuant to the rule in Celanese, not the rule in Levitz
Furniture. Both courts applied the Celanese rule in light of the decision of the United States
Supreme Court in Allentown Mack, 522 U.S. 359 (1998) holding that under the Celanese rule an
employer need only substantiate uncertainty as to whether the union had majority support.
These cases have no bearing on the instant case in which Respondent must establish
that the unions actually lacked majority support. Respondent has nothing to rely on in the
instant case other than the absolute number of employees authorizing check-off compared to
the number of employees in the bargaining unit. This is simply not enough to satisfy the Levitz
Furniture test for a valid withdrawal of recognition.
Moreover, in both cases the record established sharp declines in the number of
employees authorizing dues check-off. In Tri-State Health there was additional circumstantial
evidence supporting the employer’s uncertainty as to majority status. For example there wasn’t
any union steward for the bargaining unit.
In the instant case, by way of contrast, both unions had stewards and the number of
employees authorizing dues check-off remained static. None of Respondent’s employees either
resigned from their union or terminated his or her dues check-off authorization between May of
JD-46-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
7
2009, when Respondent began bargaining for a successor contract and March 5, 2010 when it
withdrew recognition. The only factor that changed was that Respondent hired additional
employees. One cannot assume in the absence of other evidence that any of the new unit
employees did not support the Union.5 Given this fact and the fact that one cannot assume that
any of the nonmembers no longer wished to the have the unions represent them, Respondent
has not met its burden under Levitz Furniture.
Since Respondent was not entitled to withdraw recognition from the Unions, it follows
that it violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by reconstituting the Moving Forward Team in order to
deal directly with its employees and bypass their collective bargaining representative. An
employer whose employees are represented by a statutory collective bargaining representative
may not bypass this representative and bargain or deal directly or indirectly with bargaining unit
employees, Excel Fire Protection Co., 308 NLRB 241 (1992).
Similarly, when employees are represented, their employer cannot change their wage
rates, hours of work or other terms and conditions of employment without giving their collective
bargaining representative notice of the proposed changes and an opportunity to bargain over
such changes, United Refining Co., 327 NLRB 795 (1999). Thus, Respondent’s unilateral
change to the hours and wage rate of Kim Smith violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1).
Respondent also violated Section 8(a)(2) by dealing with the Moving Forward Team
The Board conducts a two pronged inquiry to determine whether a violation of Section
8(a)(2) has occurred. First, it determines whether an employee group is a “labor organization”
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Second, if the organization is a “labor
organization,” the Board determines whether the employer dominated, interfered with or
supported the “labor organization,” Polaroid Corp., 329 NLRB 424 (1999).
As to the second criteria, I conclude that Respondent clearly dominated the Moving
Forward Team. Tim McCord selected the members, scheduled the meetings and set the
agenda for the Moving Forward Team deliberations. McCord’s explanation to team members as
to why they were selected indicates that he intended the team to represent his entire production
workforce in its discussions with him.
Under the statutory definition set forth in Section 2(5), the organization at issue is a labor
organization if (1) employees participate, (2) the organization exists, at least in part, for the
purpose of ‘‘dealing with’’ employers, and (3) these dealings concern ‘‘conditions of work’’ or
concern other statutory subjects, such as grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, or
hours of employment.
There is no question that employees participated in the Moving Forward Team and that
team meetings concerned statutory subjects such as wages. The closer question is whether the
Moving Forward Team exists or existed in part for the purpose of “dealing with” Respondent.

5 McCord testified that two employees told him that they were feeling pressure to sign a
union authorization card, Tr. 233-34. There is no evidence as to when these conversations
occurred, or under what circumstances. Even assuming the truth of this hearsay assertion, it
proves nothing as to whether these two employees wanted to continue to be represented by the
unions.
JD-46-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
8
The Board has explained that “dealing with” contemplates a bilateral mechanism
involving proposals from the employee committee concerning statutory subjects coupled with
real or apparent consideration of those proposals by management. The Board in Polaroid
stated further that the bilateral mechanism ordinarily entails a pattern or practice in which an
employee group makes proposals to management over time, and management responds to
those proposals.
In the instant case, since the Moving Forward Team met so few times, there has been
no pattern or practice of this employee group dealing with Respondent. However, the Team
was established for this purpose and Respondent has indicated an intention to hold meetings of
the Moving Forward Team in the future. From the testimony in the record, I conclude that it was
Respondent’s intention to obtain a consensus from the Moving Forward Team as to employee
sentiment on such issues as incentive pay and fringes.
I also infer that it was Respondent’s intention to consider employee sentiment as
expressed by the Moving Forward Team and to decide whether to abide by it. There is certainly
no indication that McCord intended to cede his authority to set employees’ terms and conditions
of employment to the Moving Forward Team. On this basis I find that Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(2) in forming (or re-establishing) and operating the Moving Forward Team
beginning in March 2010.
Respondent violated the Act in threatening employees with discipline if they discussed
their wages
An employer’s rule which prohibits employees from discussing their compensation is
unlawful on its face, Freund Baking Co., 336 NLRB 847 (2001). I infer that Respondent realized
this when it issued a revised production and outside crew handbook deleting its unlawful rule.
In Passavant Memorial Area Hospital, 237 NLRB 138 (1978) the Board set forth its
criteria for curing past unfair labor practices. However, in Claremont Resort and Spa, 344
NLRB 832 (2005) two of the three Board members stated that they “do not necessarily endorse
all the elements of Passavant.” In any event, by its terms the Passavant decision indicates that
what an employer must do to cure a violation may depend on the nature of the violation. The
Passavant case concerned a threat, which was communicated to 30-40 employees, that they
would be fired if they engaged in an economic strike. In such a case, the Board found that
repudiation must be 1) timely, 2) unambiguous, 3) specific to the coercive conduct and 4) free
from other prescribed illegal conduct.
I find that Respondent did not cure its violation of Section 8(a)(1) by simply issuing a
revised production and outside crew handbook that deleted the prohibition against discussing
wages. In order to cure its violation, Respondent would have been obligated, at a minimum, to
clarify for its employees that they have a Section 7 right to discuss wages. Moreover, the
revocation of the overly broad rule in this case was not free from other illegal conduct.
Respondent continued to illegally withhold recognition from the Unions and continued to make
unilateral changes in the working conditions of employees and continued to deal directly with
unit employees.
Conclusions of Law
Respondent, DaNite Holdings, Ltd. violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by
withdrawing recognition of the Unions as exclusive collective-bargaining representation of its
production employees; by ceasing its contributions to the IBEW pension fund; by unilaterally
JD-46-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
9
reducing the hours of employee Kim Smith and changing his wage rate; by directly dealing with
Kim Smith and bypassing the unions with regard to Smith’s hours of work and other terms and
conditions of his employment.
Respondent also violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by reviving the Moving Forward Team
in order to deal directly with its employees and bypass their collective bargaining representative.
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2) of the Act in reinstituting and operating the Moving
Forward Team.
Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended6
ORDER
The Respondent, DaNite Holdings, Ltd, d/b/a DaNite Sign Company, Columbus, Ohio,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Withdrawing and withholding recognition from IBEW Local 683 and Sheet Metal
Workers Local Union No. 24 as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of its
production employees.
(b) unilaterally changing the terms and conditions of employment of any bargaining unit
employee.
(c) dealing directly with any unit employee or group of unit employees concerning the
terms and conditions of employment of any employee or group of employees and bypassing the
Unions.
(d) failing and refusing to bargain with the Unions as the exclusive bargaining
representative of its production employees.
(e) forming or reviving, dominating and administering the Moving Forward Team in
violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act.
(f) promulgating any rule that prohibits employees from discussing wages, hours and
other terms and conditions of their employment.

6 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-46-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
10
(g) 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.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain with the Unions as the exclusive representative of production
employees concerning terms and conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached,
embody the understanding in a signed agreement.
(b) Upon request of the Unions, rescind any or all unilateral changes to unit employees’
wages, hours, benefits and other terms and conditions of employment and maintain the unit
employees’ terms and conditions of employment unless and until the parties bargain in good
faith to an agreement or lawful impasse concerning any proposed changes. 7
(c) Make unit employees, including Kim Smith, whole for any loss of earnings and other
benefits (such as the IBEW pension benefit) suffered as a result of Respondent’s unilateral
changes to their wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment.
(d) Immediately disband the Moving Forward Team and refrain from recognizing the
Moving Forward Team or any successor thereof as representative of any bargaining unit
employees for the purpose of dealing with Respondent concerning wages, benefits, hours or
other terms and conditions of employment.
(e) 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.

7 When negotiating a collective bargaining agreement with the authorized representative of
its employees, an employer is obliged pursuant to Section 8(a)(5) of the Act to maintain the
status quo with regard to mandatory subjects of bargaining, NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736 (1962);
Our Lady of Lourdes Health Center, 306 NLRB 337 (1992). During negotiations, an employer’s
obligation to refrain from unilateral changes in the wages, hours and other terms and conditions
of employment of bargaining unit employees, with few exceptions, extends beyond the duty to
provide notice to the Union and an opportunity to bargain about a subject matter. It
encompasses a duty to refrain from implementing such changes at all, absent overall impasse
on bargaining for the agreement as a whole, Bottom Line Enterprises, 302 NLRB 373 (1991).
In its brief, Respondent contends the parties bargained to impasse. There is no evidence to
support this contention. Respondent had submitted only one bare bones proposal to the Union.
It had no made any proposals regarding mandatory subjects of bargaining. Moreover, a legal
impasse in bargaining does not entitle an employer to withdraw recognition of its employees’
collective bargaining representative. After an impasse an employer may implement changes
which encompass only matters previously proposed and discussed during the negotiations
before an impasse had been reached. Such changes must not be substantially different or
greater than offers which the employer proposed during negotiations, Atlas Tack Corp., 226
NLRB 222, 227 (1976) enfd. 559 F. 2d 1201 (1st Cir. 1977).
JD-46-10
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
11
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its Columbus, Ohio facility, copies
of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”8 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 9, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized
representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent 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 has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice
to all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since
March 5, 2010.
(g) 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
the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C., August 9, 2010.
____________________
Arthur J. Amchan
Administrative Law Judge

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 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-46-10
Columbus, OH
APPENDIX
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 NOT unlawfully withdraw recognition from IBEW Local 683 and Sheet Metal Workers
Union Local 24 as the joint collective bargaining representatives of our production employees.
WE WILL NOT bypass the Unions and deal directly with our employees regarding wages, hours
and other terms and conditions of their employment.
WE WILL NOT make changes in the terms and conditions of employment of bargaining unit
members without notifying your collective bargaining representative and offering the Unions the
opportunity to meet and bargain over such changes.
WE WILL NOT form or participate in any group of employees that we dominate, interfere with or
support, to deal with us regarding wages, benefits, hours and other terms and conditions of your
employment.
WE WILL NOT promulgate any rule that prohibits you from discussing your wages, hours and
other terms and conditions of your employment.
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.
WE WILL, recognize and on request, bargain with the Union towards a collective bargaining
agreement or until a good faith impasse is reached. During negotiations WE WILL NOT make
any changes in the terms and conditions of your employment. If a lawful impasse is reached we
may implement changes that were proposed and discussed in collective bargaining
negotiations.
WE WILL make employees, including Kim Smith, whole for any wages or benefits lost as the
result of our unilateral changes in the terms and conditions of their employment.
JD-46-10
Columbus, OH
WE WILL upon request by the Unions, rescind any or all unilateral changes to unit employees’
wage, hours, benefits and other terms and conditions of employment and WE WILL restore any
benefits unilaterally discontinued or terminated.
DANITE HOLDINGS, LTD
D/B/A DANITE SIGN 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.
550 Main Street, Federal Office Building, Room 3003
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3271
Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
513-684-3686.
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, 513-684-3750.