Dayton Electroplate

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1992

308 N.L.R.B. 1056 (N.L.R.B. 1992)

1056
308 NLRB No. 154
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 The name of the Charging Party has been changed to reflect the
new official name of the International Union.
2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an admin-
istrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear prepon-
derance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incor-
rect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188
F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and
find no basis for reversing the findings.
3 In concluding that the Respondent bargained in bad faith, we
rely, in particular, on (1) the judge’s findings that the Respondent
offered no explanation for its decision to renege on its prior agree-
ments concerning noneconomic matters when it made and imple-
mented the regressive May 22 bargaining proposals; and (2) the Re-
spondent’s conduct away from the bargaining table, including state-
ments made during a supervisors’ meeting and its promises of favor-
able treatment of the maintenance employees who supported the
April 6 contract proposals. These factors are inconsistent with an in-
tent to bargain in good faith.
1 All dates herein are 1990 unless otherwise indicated.
2 The bargaining unit admitted to be appropriate within the mean-
ing of Sec. 9(b) of the Act is:
All full-time and regular part-time production and maintenance
employees and all warehouse employees employed by
[Respondent/Employer] at its Dayton, Ohio, operations and fa-
cilities within Local 957’s jurisdiction, not to exceed twenty-five
air miles from the center of Dayton, Ohio, presently located at
1030 Valley Street, Dayton, Ohio, but excluding all office cleri-
cal employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors,
as defined in the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
Dayton Electroplate, Inc. and Teamsters Local
Union No. 957, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, AFL–CIO.1 Case 9–CA–27587
September 29, 1992
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS DEVANEY, OVIATT, AND
RAUDABAUGH
On April 23, 1992, Administrative Law Judge Don-
ald R. Holley issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and brief and has de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,2 and con-
clusions3 and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Dayton Electroplate, Inc.,
Dayton, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall take the action set forth in the Order.
Deborah Jacobson, Esq., for the General Counsel.
John W. Slagle, Esq., of Dayton, Ohio, for the Respondent.
John R. Doll, Esq. (Logothetis and Pence), of Dayton, Ohio,
for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DONALD R. HOLLEY, Administrative Law Judge. Upon an
original charge filed by the captioned Union on June 7,
1990,1 the Acting Regional Director for Region 9 of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board issued a complaint on Novem-
ber 28 which alleged, in substance, that Dayton Electroplate,
Inc. (Respondent) violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act by making regressive bargaining
proposals to the Union on May 22 and by implementing its
May 22 contract proposal on June 1 without having reached
a valid good-faith impasse with the Union. Respondent filed
timely answer denying that it had engaged in the unfair labor
practices alleged in the complaint.
The case was heard in Dayton, Ohio, on April 10 and 11,
1991. All parties appeared and were afforded full opportunity
to participate. Upon the entire record, including consideration
of posthearing briefs filed by the parties, and from my obser-
vation of the demeanor of the witnesses who appeared to
give testimony, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent is an Ohio corporation with its principal office
and place of business located in Dayton, Ohio. It is engaged
in the business of contract electroplating metal
parts/assemblies for other business entities. During the 12-
month period preceding issuance of the complaint herein, it
provided services valued in excess of $50,000 for Ford
Motor Company, an enterprise directly engaged in interstate
commerce. It is admitted, and I find, that Respondent is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. STATUS OF LABOR ORGANIZATION
It is admitted, and I find, that General Truck Drivers,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No.
947, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
AFL–CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Facts
Dayton Electroplate, Inc. commenced business on June 1,
1984, after Charles Borum, Respondent’s president and sole
shareholder, purchased certain assets and liabilities of a part-
nership known as Dayton Rustproof. At the time of the trans-
action, the Union represented Dayton Rustproof’s production
and maintenance employees, and Respondent continued to
recognize the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
agent of the employees. That recognition is embodied in suc-
cessive collective-bargaining contracts, the most recent of
which was effective during the period June 1, 1987, to June
1, 1990.2
1057DAYTON ELECTROPLATE
constituting the bargaining unit as certified by the National
Labor Relations Board on January 27, 1975, in case No. 9-RC-
10879.
3 Harrison maintains a parts inventory to some extent.
4 The letter indicated, inter alia, Respondent needed stable labor re-
lations to enable it to obtain new business and to retain its existing
customers.
Respondent’s business consists of plating various items for
customers who are involved principally in the automotive
and appliance industries. During the period under consider-
ation in the instant case, its major customers were Roll
Formed Products Company (Roll Formed), Harrison Radiator
Division of General Motors Corporation (Harrison), and Ford
Electronics and Refrigeration Corporation (Ford). Borum in-
dicated during his testimony that Roll Formed, Ford, and to
a lesser degree, Harrison,3 are all disciples of the ‘‘just-in-
time’’ inventory management philosophy. Thus, those entities
deliver items to Respondent for plating, accept delivery of
the plated items after they have been plated, and immediately
use the plated items to construct a product. He further indi-
cated that Respondent is the sole concern which plates cer-
tain items for the above named, and other customers, and
that the arrangement is referred to as a single-source situa-
tion.
While Respondent’s 1987–1990 collective-bargaining con-
tract with the Union was not to expire until June 1, 1990,
in early November 1989, Charles Borum met with John
Buzard, business representative of the Union, and offered
yearly pay increases and continuation of all other contractual
provisions (except dates) if the Union would enter a new
contract effective from October 1, 1989, to September 30,
1992. He thereafter documented his offer by letter to Buzard
dated November 9, 1989 (G.C. Exh. 3).4 The proposed con-
tract was presented to bargaining unit members, and they re-
jected it.
On March 27, 1990, the parties commenced negotiations
for a contract which was to replace the subsisting agreement
due to expire on June 1. At the first negotiation session, the
Union presented Respondent with its contract proposals.
Charles and Paul Borum (Respondent’s V-P, operations) rep-
resented Respondent, and Buzard and an employee bargain-
ing committee represented the Union. No agreements were
reached.
Sometime prior to March 30, 1990, Dennis Hughes, cer-
tified public accountant, the auditor designated by the Union,
audited the financial records of the Respondent. On March
30, 1990, he submitted a report summarizing his findings
which indicated that such findings were based on ‘‘data for
the nearly six years the company has operated.’’ In his report
to the Union, Hughes, inter alia, stated (G.C. Exh. 6):
Mr. Borum and the controller, Mr. Trentman, were
both very helpful and cooperative during the discus-
sions following my review. Mr. Borum indicated that
the company had suffered several set-backs. These in-
cluded the loss of a $120,000 lawsuit in 1989 which re-
sulted from the receipt of faulty materials. He also al-
luded to the fact that the company is still recovering
from the huge investment in pollution control facilities
that the company was forced to install several years
ago. In addition, he pointed out that his competitive sit-
uation is as intense as ever.
The financial information which I think is relevant to
the situation you and your members are considering is
as follows. The company’s income tax returns show
total losses amounting to approximately $1.3 million for
the first five and one half years of operations. The
amount of loss sustained for financial accounting pur-
poses is approximately $600,000 less. This results from
the fact that substantial amounts of equipment are being
written off faster for tax purposes than for book pur-
poses. The company’s sales have varied substantially
ranging from a low of $2.6 million in 1986 to a high
of $3.7 million in 1988. The cost of goods manufac-
tured and operating expense percentages over the entire
period have remained very consistent. This has led me
to conclude that the information I saw was very rep-
resentative of the company’s results of operations.
To summarize, I feel this company is not without prob-
lems but its prospects are much brighter than the tax re-
turns indicate. The company appears to be well man-
aged and I have been impressed in talking with Mr.
Borum. Labor costs are a substantial part of their total
costs and careful management of this amount is cer-
tainly in the best interests of the company. The com-
pany has held the line on virtually all other expenses.
I believe they are on the verge of becoming profitable
and if enough sales can be generated, they can become
substantially profitable. It is this scenario that makes
the decisions by your membership so difficult.
Buzard shared the auditor’s report with the membership of
the Union.
The same persons met on April 2 and 3. Notes taken dur-
ing the sessions by Buzard and Paul Borum were placed in
the record as General Counsel’s Exhibits 4 and 5, respec-
tively. The notes reflect, inter alia, that Respondent’s spokes-
man emphasized that customers such as Ford, GM, and Roll
Formed were urging the Company to have its labor contract
renewed well before the expiration date to avoid disruption
in supply. Respondent proposed that a new agreement be
ratified no later than April 15 to avoid a situation wherein
their customers would refrain from shopping for new suppli-
ers. It was agreed that noneconomic matters would be settled
before economic issues were discussed. The parties reviewed
the Union’s proposed contract, and a number of items were
agreed upon.
Paul Borum credibly testified that all noneconomic issues
were resolved shortly after April 3, and the parties next met
on April 5 and 6. The Union proposed wage increases which
it estimated would cost the Company $123,000 over 3 years.
Respondent initially countered by offering lump sums of
$400 in 1990 and 1991, 30 cents across-the-board increase
in the third year, wage reopener at the end of the third year,
all based on a 5-year contract. After further negotiation, it in-
creased the lum sum to $500 in the first 2 years and the third
year across-the-board to 40 cents. Bargaining unit employees
voted on the April 6 offer and rejected it.
Irene Gier, an employee on the negotiating committee, was
questioned by Respondent’s vice president, Paul Borum,
when she returned to work after the April 8 ratification vote.
Borum asked Gier and Keith Mills, the chief steward, about
the results of the vote. When Gier told him it was ‘‘20 no’s
and 3 yes’s,’’ Borum asked who voted ‘‘yes.’’ Although Gier
1058 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5 General Counsel witness George Steele testified that he asked
Paul Borum if the Company was really going to lose the business
of the companies that sent the letters. He claims Borum replied: ‘‘It
was nice to have friends in the right places at the right times.’’ Paul
Borum denied he made the statement. Charles Borum admitted he
solicited letters so he could bring the need for early agreement to
the attention of the bargaining committee. I credit Steele.
6 Maintenance man and maintenance helper were to receive their
then-current hourly rate for 3 years.
insisted she could not disclose that information, Borum re-
peatedly questioned her and asked if it was the three commit-
tee members who had voted yes.
The next negotiation session was held on April 11. Com-
pany spokesmen noted that Ford and Harrison were looking
for new suppliers to do their work, and that Roll Formed
moved one-third of their work out when the last contract was
settled a week after expiration. The parties agreed they
should next meet with a Federal mediator.
The parties met with Federal mediator David Brodar from
April 17 foreward. During the first meeting, they explained
their positions. During the April 19 meeting, the parties dis-
cussed working conditions in the plant and insurance. The
Union’s proposal for creation of a safety committee was
agreed upon, and the Company agreed to assist employees
who filed insurance claims.
On April 23, the parties met once again with the Federal
mediator. Buzard failed to indicate what occurred during the
meeting, but he recalled that the safety committee and insur-
ance were topics which were discussed.
On April 27, bargaining unit employees again voted on the
April 5–6 proposal made by Respondent. The employees re-
jected the proposal.
By letter dated April 30, Respondent notified the Union
that it was withdrawing all ‘‘offers, understandings and
agreements’’ which resulted from negotiations that com-
menced on March 27, 1990. It explained its action stating
(G.C. Exh. 7):
The withdrawal of any and all offers, understandings
or agreements is the result of the contract not being
timely ratified which has jeopardized the Company’s
business relations and contracts with its customers and
has compounded the Company’s serious financial con-
dition. The need for early ratification has been through-
out the negotiations, of paramount importance as you
know.
In mid-May, Respondent sent the Union copies of letters
which it had solicited from Roll Formed, Harrison and Ford.
The letters, which were placed in the record as General
Counsel’s Exhibit 8 indicate that the named customers were
concerned over Respondent’s labor contract and their need
for an uninterrupted supply of parts. Roll Formed and Har-
rison requested that they be kept advised to enable them to
seek alternate means of supply if necessary, and Ford indi-
cated it was taking immediate steps to obtain other sources
of supply.5
The next bargaining session was held on May 22, 9 days
before the contract was to expire. During the session, Re-
spondent presented the Union with a new contract proposal
which provoked the instant litigation. The proposal was
placed in the record as General Counsel’s Exhibit 9, and pro-
posed, inter alia: (1) That all official union business posted
on the bulletin board must be submitted to the vice president
of Operations before posting; (2) that overtime for time
worked in excess of 8 hours in a day be eliminated; (3) that
notice of assignments of work beyond an employee’s normal
shift was to be reduced from 4 to 2 hours; (4) that the proba-
tionary period for new employees was to be 180 days, rather
than 60 days; (5) that employees with 20 years of seniority
would receive 3 weeks of vacation, rather than 4 weeks; (6)
That the day after Thanksgiving would be a paid holiday, but
employee’s birthdays would not be a paid holiday; (7) that
grandchildren would be added to the funeral leave provision;
(8) that group insurance was to be deleted from the contract;
(9) that probationary employees would be paid 50 percent of
the classified job rate at hire, rather than 30 cents less and
that they be paid 25 cents less than the classification rate
after 90 days; (10) that the contract term would be 5 years,
with wage reopener after 3 years; and (11) that the wages
of all employees other than maintenance employees would be
reduced by approximately 11.3 percent and frozen for 3
years.6 Buzard credibly testified that the elimination of over-
time after 8 hours, Company approval of union notices, the
change in the birthday holiday, and alteration of the proba-
tionary period had not been discussed in earlier negotiations.
When presenting its proposal, Respondent indicated it was
the best they had to offer but it was not necessarily a final
offer.
On either May 23 or 24, Respondent advised the Union
that if it would ‘‘pre ratify’’ the April 6 tentative agreement
and submit it back to Respondent before noon on May 24,
the Respondent would accept that proposal. A vote was con-
ducted and the employees rejected the April 6 tentative
agreement by a vote of 25 to 7.
By letter dated May 24, Respondent advised the Union as
follows (G.C. Exh. 11):
Please accept this letter as a response to you letter
dated May 24, 1990, in which you advised that the
Company’s April 5, 1990, Proposal was rejected by
vote taken on May 24, 1990, by the employees in the
unit represented by Teamsters Local Union No. 957
here at Dayton Electroplate.
Technically, our April 5, 1990, Proposal was not on
the table. Because one major customer had given us
until Noon today to bring our negotiations to closure
before it started to pull work out of the Plant, we did
indicate through the Federal Mediator to you that if
Teamsters Local Union No. 957 would make the April
5, 1990, Proposal as a pre-ratified counter proposal
back to us before NOON today, we would accept it.
Since no such pre-ratification was received, we are
back to the status before the discussions which took
place on May 23, 1990, which prompted your meeting
this morning.
1059DAYTON ELECTROPLATE
During our meeting on May 22, 1990, we submitted
a formal Proposal based on the anticipated loss of busi-
ness we know is about to occur (Ford, GM and Roll
Form), and the loss of business which has already oc-
curred (Roll Form), because we have not been able to
satisfactorily conclude negotiations. As you know, and
as your auditors have already verified, our operations
are not now profitable. The loss of the business we
have and the customers who have provided us with this
business obviously represents a very significant adverse
impact on our already bad financial condition. In appre-
ciation of this impact, on May 22, 1990, we submitted
a Proposal to you which reflected this changed eco-
nomic situation. In essence, the economic changes re-
flected by this new Proposal called for a wage reduc-
tion of approximately 11.3% for our Production em-
ployees with a three (3) year wage freeze thereafter,
and a wage freeze for three (3) years for the Skilled
classifications. In addition, we proposed that we no
longer provide life, AD&D or health insurance. This
represents a $2.00 per hour (approximately) reduction
in our wage/benefit cost.
In our meeting on May 22, 1990, you asked if this
new Proposal was our ‘‘best and final’’ offer in light
of the change in circumstances. Mr. Harrington, our
spokesman, told you that this was the ‘‘best’ the Com-
pany could offer because of the anticipated loss of busi-
ness, but did not indicate it was final. Obviously, is is
not final; but, it does represent our best thinking on a
way to make operations profitable and to accomplish
the financial relief—approximately $2.00 per hour re-
duction—we believe is necessary to accomplish this ob-
jective. But, if you have a better idea which accom-
plishes the same economic relief, we certainly want to
know of it and consider it.
Mr. Harrington has been in contact with the Federal
Mediator and a meeting will be set up for Wednesday
of next week at 9:00 A.M in the Mediator’s office. As
I understand our situation with our customers, that is
too late to save the work we will be losing because of
our uncertain situation. And, in that regard, I have told
those customers that you have indicated that will not
have a strike and that even if we do have a work inter-
ruption, we will continue to be able to meet their pro-
duction needs. But, this is not enough assurance for
them because of their JIT (Just In Time) program. They
might keep using us as they phase in someone else; but,
this is a short-time rather than a long-time situation.
Obviously, we are just as perplexed as you are with this
situation. We appreciate the efforts you have made be-
cause you understand and appreciate our very bad eco-
nomic situation. We wish that the employees had this
same understanding but it seems that they don’t under-
stand it because they can’t accept it, not because it has
not been presented to them.
We will continue to negotiate in an effort to reach
agreement. And again, if you have any suggestions -
now, tomorrow or whenever—call me. Anything you
have to suggest to resolve this will be considered.
On May 24, Respondent posted the following ‘‘Notice’’ to
employees on its bulletin board (G.C. Exh. 12):
NOTICE
To All Employees:
Posted with this notice is a copy of the letter that we
received today from John Buzard.
The current collective bargaining agreement is in ef-
fect ‘‘until June 1, 1990,’’ thus it terminates at mid-
night May 31—June 1, 1990 and is not in effect on Fri-
day, June 1, 1990.
In recent weeks we have tried to keep you all fully
informed concerning our position with our major cus-
tomers—Ford, Harrison and Roll Formed. We have
been up front with you. We did not make up the de-
mands that these customers have put on the Company.
Because of their ‘‘Just In time’’ (J.I.T.) program they
each must be assured of uninterrupted production from
us and are totally unwilling to accept any risk of inter-
ruption of our work to them.
We have made the best offer we could make—an
offer that we believe is much more than we could af-
ford given the Company’s financial condition—which
your auditors have verified—and an offer which was
conditioned on our keeping the customers that we now
have.
Because we have now lost work and will continue to
lose work—and Ford has left no doubt that once it is
out of here we will never get it back—our economic
situation is worse today than it was and we cannot con-
tinue to make the offer which we made on April 5,
1990.
It is our understanding that you have been instructed
not to strike and to work as usual on June 1, 1990. That
is your right. Also, in that regard we assure you that
we will not engage in any ‘‘lock out.’’
We will be meeting with your representative to con-
tinue to negotiate.
/s/ Charles J. Borum
President
The parties next met with the Federal mediator on May
30. they discussed ways Respondent could get or retain busi-
ness, and Respondent offered to permit employees to con-
tinue their health insurance coverage by having all the pre-
miums deducted from their pay, or by substituting a larger
wage cut for insurance. No agreement was reached. Respond-
ent indicated it intended to implement its last proposal, and
the Union indicated the employees would continue to work.
Charles Borum and his son Paul both claimed the Federal
mediator commented during the session that it appeared the
parties were at impasse. As Union Representative Buzard did
not deny the assertions, I credit them.
1060 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
By letter to the Union dated May 31, Respondent indicated
it would implement its last offer on June 1. The letter was
placed in evidence as General Counsel’s Exhibit 13 and
states:
Based on the negotiations which took place yester-
day in the offices of the Federal Mediation and Concil-
iation Service and the information which has been con-
veyed to us since that meeting both from you directly
and from the Federal Mediator, we have concluded that
an impasse in our current negotiations exists.
Because this impasse exists and because of: (1) our
poor economic position, as verified by your auditors;
(2) the actions of our customers in cutting back work;
and (3) our need to take action immediately in the hope
that we will be able to survive, we have determined to
implement the ‘‘last offer’’ which we made to you yes-
terday, a copy of which is enclosed. This last offer will
be implemented at 12:00 Midnight tonight.
Briefly outlined, this ‘‘last offer is as follows:
(1) New five (5) year Collective Bargaining Agree-
ment with wages fixed for a three (3) year period and
a wage reopener for the fourth and fifth year;
(2) The new Collective Bargaining Agreement con-
tains the same provisions as contained in our current
Agreement except:
(A) Article II, Section 3, is deleted—this is the
‘‘successors and assigns’’ clause;
(B) Article V, Section 1, is changed to require sub-
mission of notices to be posted by the Union on the
Company bulletin board to the Vice President of Oper-
ations before posting;
(C) Article IX, Section 3, is changed to eliminate
daily overtime, as such, and to pay overtime on a week-
ly - over forty (40) hours—basis only;
(D) Article IX, Section 6, is changed to require only
two (2) hours’ notice of required working of overtime;
(E) Article X, Section 1, is changed to provide for
a 180 calendar day probationary period;
(F) Article XIV, Section 1 and Section 2, are
changed to eliminate the fourth (4th) week of vacation;
(G) Article IV, Section i, is changed to replace the
‘‘Birthday’’ holiday with the ‘‘Friday after Thanks-
giving’’ as a holiday;
(H) Article XVI, Section 2, is changed to add grand-
children to the definition of immediate family for fu-
neral leave;
(I) Article XIX, Section 2, is changed to permit pay-
ment of a rate of Fifty Cent ($.50) below the estab-
lished rate for a classification for the first ninety (90)
days of work, and Twenty-five Cents ($.25) below the
established rate for the remainder of the employee’s
probationary period;
(J) Appendix A is changed to provide for the follow-
ing wage rates and job classifications:
RATES OF PAY
6/01/90 6/01/91 6/01/92
Leadman $7.29 $7.29 $7.29
Leadman-Trainee 7.00 7.00 7.00
Maintenance Man 8.69 8.69 8.69
Maintenance Helper 8.16 8.16 8.16
Material Handler Ship-
ping & Receiving 7.19 7.19 7.19
Production 7.00 7.00 7.00
Janitor—A 7.19 7.19 7.19
Janitor—B 7.00 7.00 7.00
(K) Appendix C is changed to update the language
to our current insurance coverage with the St. Elizabeth
Insurance Company, provided this coverage continues
to be made available, and to require employees who de-
sire this coverage to pay the full cost of the insurance.
While we have taken this action at this time, we con-
tinue to recognize our obligation to negotiate in an ef-
fort to reach agreement. We will continue to do so. As
I indicated to you in my letter of May 24, 1990, and
yesterday, if you have any suggestions or ideas on who
we can resolve this situation, I want to hear from you.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Charles J. Borum
President
The parties met briefly with the Federal mediator on June
20 at the Respondent’s request. When the union negotiators
were informed Respondent had nothing new to offer, they in-
dicated they were there to respond to any proposals Respond-
ent offered, and as it was making no proposals there was
nothing to discuss. Nothing was accomplished at the meet-
ing.
Appearing as a witness for General Counsel, George
Steele, a maintenance foreman at Respondent from March
1990 until his termination the day before Thanksgiving 1990,
testified that, at about the time the contract expired, he at-
tended a meeting at which the then-existing situation was
discussed. He indicated that all the foremen attended the
meeting, and Chuck (Charles) and Paul Borum informed
them how they should handle situations if the contract was
not ratified. The instructions included an admonition that
they were not to go to hourly people without having another
management person with them to avoid conflicts in event of
a confrontation; to keep an eye out for rules infractions, and
to write the people up; and to keep a close eye on trouble-
makers such as Keith Mills, Gary Denning, and a blond-
headed girl whose name was, he thought, Jackie. Steele
claimed the foremen were told to write up the troublemakers
and get them out of there. At some point during the meeting,
Steele recalled that Chuck told them: ‘‘I am not trying to
break the union, but as many of these people as we can get
out of here, the better off, we will be.’’ Finally, he claimed
1061DAYTON ELECTROPLATE
7 Charles Borum acknowledged he met with the management team
the day before the contract expired. He testified the discussion cen-
tered around what management should do in event the employees
decided to strike and the possibility that there would be sabotage.
He agreed he told those present that they should get another manage-
ment individual to accompany them if there were problems, and he
admitted he asked if any of them had noticed anyone giving ‘‘stat-
ic’’ in the last few days. The only portion of Steele’s testimony
which he disputed was the claim that he made a remark about play-
ing poker Texas-style. Steele was the more impressive witness and
I credit fully his account of the meeting.
8 Charles and Paul Borum did not refute Steele’s version of the de-
scribed event. Employee Abbott corroborated Steele’s version of the
incident.
that Chuck Borum told them he was going to teach the
Union how to play poker Texas-style.7
Steele testified that on another occasion, at or near con-
tract expiration, Chuck and Paul Borum, and supervisor John
Schume, approached maintenance employees Bill Abbott and
Keith Louts, who had made it known that they favored ratifi-
cation of the contract, to discuss insurance. He indicated that
when the employees asked about their insurance, Chuck
thanked them for their loyalty and told them not to worry
about it; that he would take care of it, and they would be
there long after the other employees were gone.8
Respondent sought, through testimony given by Charles
Borum, Paul Borum, and its financial advisor Donald
Trentman, to show that its financial situation as of May 22,
1990, dictated that it make a regressive economic proposal
at that time. Additionally, it offered documentary evidence
intended to support its contention.
Trentman, a certified public account who was formerly a
partner in Ernest and Ernest, an international accounting
firm, is Respondent’s vice president, controller. He indicated
that during the fall of 1989, he advised Charles Borum to re-
frain from including an increase in wages in his initial offer
to the Union. He stated the reason for his recommendation
was that the sales picture was one wherein no trend line of
increased sales was shown by the sales experienced prior to
that time. To illustrate his point, Respondent placed in evi-
dence as Respondent’s Exhibit 8 a statistical study prepared
by Trentman from Respondent’s financial records. The ex-
hibit reveals, inter alia: that for the year 1989 the dollar
amount of monthly sales needed to produce a break-even sit-
uation was $287,188; that sales during January, March, and
May exceeded the break-even amount, while sales during all
other months did not; and that total sales for 1989 were
$3,143,593, while the break-even figure for 1989 was
$3,446,254. For the year 1990, the document reveals, inter
alia: that the dollar amount of sales per month needed to
produce a break-even situation was $195,600; that sales dur-
ing March, April, May, and August exceeded that amount;
and that total sales for 1990 were $2,093,292, while the
break-even figure for 1990 was $2,347,198. With specific re-
gard to the first 6 months of 1990, the document reveals Re-
spondent’s sales were:
January $173,984
February 177,430
March 228,047
April 196,733
May 208,236
June 174,493
Trentman testified that his statistical study caused him to
conclude that during the period September 1989 through De-
cember 1990, Respondent’s current assets were not sufficient
to pay its current liabilities. He indicated that to remain in
business during the period, Respondent paid its vendors as
late as possible, deferred payment on bank debt, and re-
frained from paying Charles Borum any salary or dividends.
Charles Borum indicated during his testimony that he ig-
nored Trentman’s advice that he not offer a proposed in-
crease in employee wages in negotiations with the Union be-
cause he and Respondent management were optimistic during
the fall of 1989 that sales volume from existing customers
and new customers was going to increase. He testified that
while Respondent’s operations were not profitable, and he in-
vited the Union to audit its financial records to verify its
poor financial condition, and he indicated to Union Business
Representative Buzard that early agreement on a new con-
tract would enable Respondent to retain its major customers
and obtain new business. He testified that he remained opti-
mistic about the business during the March/April 1990 time
frame as the profit picture looked pretty good and their sales
volume was picking up. After the Respondent’s contract pro-
posal, which included an increase in wages and benefits, was
rejected in April, Charles Borum indicated that Lou Collern
at Roll Formed started pressing him about Respondent’s fail-
ure to obtain a ratified contract, and he suggested that
Collern document his concern by putting it in a letter. As
Ford and Harrison were also carefully monitoring the
progress of negotiations, he indicated Respondent also sug-
gested that they document their concerns. As indicated,
supra, he transmitted the letters to the Union after he re-
ceived them.
Paul Borum indicated during his testimony that, commenc-
ing in late 1988, he devoted a substantial amount of his time
to maintaining a good rapport with existing customers and
seeking to obtain new customers. He testified that in late
1989, A. C. Rochester, a division of General Motors, was
considering the feasibility of placing its business with Re-
spondent and that he was optimistic about obtaining their
business until they sent a delegation to Respondent in the
spring of 1990 and learned that Respondent’s contract with
the Union was due to expire June 1. He claimed the lack of
contract continuity became a stumbling block in the negotia-
tions and A. C. Rochester decided to place their work else-
where. Without indicating when the business was lost, Paul
Borum testified that Ford eventually moved some of its busi-
ness to Slants Plating in Connersville, Indiana, and that Roll
Formed moved some of its business to Tri-State Plating.
Charles Borum testified that by May ‘‘it was clear that we
were on a serious down-turn in our sales volume,’’ and they
were seriously concerned about how much business they
were going to lose and how fast they were going to lose it.
While Charles Borum was a witness, Respondent placed
certain documentary evidence in the record to support its
contention that its operations have not been profitable, and
to show that its economic situation worsened around the time
it made its May 22 proposal to the Union.
The first document offered was Respondent’s Exhibit 1,
which reveals Respondent’s sales and profit and/or loss dur-
1062 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
9 General Counsel’s addition of parts produced for Harrison and
Ford produced the following:
The record reveals no parts were produced for Ford from July 5
to 16, 1990.
ing the years 1985 through 1990. The document reveals the
following:
Sales Profit or Loss
1985 3,105,494 -101,045
1986 2,817,183 -389,632
1987 2,700,000 -543,000
1988 3,800,000 + 67,753
1990 2,000,000 -148,000
The second document, Respondent’s Exhibit 2, purports to
show the actual profit or loss experienced during the period
January 1990 through March 1991; the average break-even
point during the period January 1988 through March 1991;
and the monthly average profit or loss for calendar years
1988 and 1990. Other than showing that 1988 was a profit-
able year, while 1989 was not a profitable year, the docu-
ment depicts losses in January and February 1990, a profit
in March and April, losses in May, June, and July, a slight
profit in August, losses in September and October, a profit
in November, and a significant loss in December. While the
document depicts a gradual upturn from January to March,
profitable operation during March and April, and a downturn
after April until profitable operations are realized again in
August, I note that Respondent’s Exhibit 8 reveals that the
monthly break-even sales during 1990 were $195,600 and the
sales during March, April, and May 1990 were $228,047,
$196,733 and $208,236, respectively. Obviously, something
other than insufficient sales caused Respondent to operate at
a loss during May 1990. In the circumstances described, I ac-
cord little weight to Respondent’s Exhibit 2.
The third grouping of documents placed in the record
through Charles Borum are marked Respondent’s Exhibits
3(a), (b), and (c). The documents depict total labor hours,
which include production labor, temporary labor, and indirect
labors for the period June 18, 1989, through March 16, 1991.
Respondent’s Exhibits 3(a) and (b) reveal that production
labor increased gradually from January 1990 until mid-
March, and it gradually declined thereafter through mid-June.
During the same period, no temporary labor was used from
January through mid-March, but a significant amount of tem-
porary labor was used from mid-March through mid-June.
Charles Borum indicated the exhibit was prepared to show
a marked decline in labor hours after mid-April.
In her brief, counsel for General Counsel added total labor
used during the period December 16 through May 26, 1989.
Her diagram reveals a steady increase in total labor hours in
1990 until it peaked at almost 2000 hours in mid-March,
dropped thereafter to about 1300 hours by April 14, rose to
1600 hours by late April, and remained above 1400 hours
through May 26.
Respondent placed its exhibits (R. Exhs. 5 and 6) in the
record to show that while Roll Formed sent it slightly more
than 300,000 parts to be plated during the May–July period
in 1989, it sent it slightly less than 300,000 parts in May
1990, about 175,000 in June, and the number sent it for plat-
ing by July had dropped to approximately 125,000.
Month Number of Parts Pro-duced for Harrison
Number of Parts Pro-
duced for Ford
January 1990 418,424 77,119
February 1990 262,313 79,086
March 1990 496,730 86,986
April 1990 401,662 95,757
May 1990 610,248 103,358
June 1990 549,432 108,998
July 1990 559,656 64,093
August 1990 526,080 138,380
Utilizing Respondent’s daily production reports (G.C. Exh.
16), counsel for General Counsel demonstrated in her brief
(p. 11) that Respondent enjoyed a steady increase in the
business it did with Harrison and Ford during the period Jan-
uary through August 1990. My independent review of Gen-
eral Counsel’s Exhibit 16 reveals that Respondent continued
during the period indicated to produce essentially the same
parts for Harrison and Ford during the first 8 months of
1990, and that, as contended by counsel for General Counsel,
the total number of parts processed for the named entities
during the 8-month period steadily increased.9
Discussion and Conclusions
It is well settled that determination as to whether a Re-
spondent has demonstrated adherence to the principles of
good-faith bargaining is made by drawing inferences from
the conduct of the parties as a whole.’’ NLRB v. Insurance
Agents, 361 U.S. 477, 498 (1960); Carpenters Local 1780,
244 NLRB 277, 280–281 (1979). My consideration of the
conduct of the parties in the instant case, coupled with the
inferences I draw from their conduct, causes me to conclude
that Respondent did not adhere to the principles of good-faith
bargaining from April 30, 1990, forward.
The facts, supra, leave no doubt that the Respondent bar-
gained in good faith with the Union from November 1989
until it withdraw all ‘‘offers, understandings and agree-
ments’’ which resulted from negotiations prior to that time.
During the described period, it sought in November 1989 to
obtain a ratified agreement by initially offering to increase
the wages of employees 16 to 17 cents per hour on Decem-
ber 31, 1989, and September 30, 1990, and 12 to 13 cents
on September 29, 1991, if they would ratify an agreement,
which otherwise remained the same, by October 1, 1989.
Thereafter, during bargaining sessions held between March
27, 1990, and April 6, 1990, tentative agreement was reached
by the parties on all noneconomic matters, and Respondent
progressively made increased wage offers, which concluded
on April 6 with an offer which would increase the wages of
employees approximately $10 per week during the first 2
years (1990 and 1991), $16 per week during the third year
(1992), with a wage reopener at the end of the third year;
1063DAYTON ELECTROPLATE
all contingent on agreement that the contract term would be
5 years. As reflected by the record, bargaining unit employ-
ees failed to ratify the contract proposals made by Respond-
ent despite the fact that tentative agreement had been reached
by the parties on the April 5–6, 1990 proposal.
Respondent’s patience with the bargaining unit employees
ended on April 27 when they refused to ratify the April 5–
6 proposal, as amended by the agreements reached on safety
committee and insurance claims filing assistance. As re-
vealed, supra, it withdrew all prior tentative agreements and
understandings on April 30, and thereafter presented what
must be labeled to be extremely regressive proposals to the
Union on May 22. In addition to the fact that it proposed
that employees agree to a wage and health insurance provi-
sion which would reduce their remuneration by about $80
per week, it reneged on its previous tentative agreement on
the union bulletin board provision, that portion of the holiday
provision which made the employees’ birthday a paid holi-
day, and the provision which required the Company to give
4 hours notice if an employee was to be given a work as-
signment after completing his or her regular shift. Respond-
ent offered no explanation for its decision to renege on its
prior agreements on the described noneconomic matters, and
I find that by proposing regressive changes, it exhibited bad
faith. American Seating Co. of Mississippi, 424 F.2d 106 (5th
Cir. 1970); General Athletics Products Co., 327 NLRB 1565,
1574 (1977).
In addition to presenting the Union with noneconomic pro-
posals which constituted action which was inconsistent with
a good-faith attempt to reach agreement, Respondent engaged
in conduct at or near expiration of the contract which exhib-
ited its displeasure with bargaining unit employers. Thus, as
revealed, supra, at a meeting with its supervisors, Respondent
management indicated that troublemakers who opposed ratifi-
cation of the contract such as Keith Mills, Gary Denning,
and Jackie lll should be watched closely and should be
written up if they violated company rules so they could get
them out of there. During the same meeting, Charles Borum
stated, ‘‘I’m not trying to break the Union. But as many of
these people as we can get out of here, the better off we will
be.’’ As indicated, supra, Charles Borum commented during
the meeting that he was going to teach the Union to play
poker Texas-style. In addition to indicating its animus against
employees who had been against ratifying its proposals, Re-
spondent, through Charles Borum and Paul Borum, thanked
its maintenance employees, who were known to have favored
ratification of the April 5–6 proposals by exempting them
from the wage cut imposed on all other employees, inform-
ing them they should not worry about their health insurance,
promising that ‘‘they would still be there when the other em-
ployees were gone,’’ and by thanking them for their loyalty.
By engaging in the described conduct away from the bar-
gaining table, Respondent engaged in conduct which is in-
consistent with an intent to bargain with the Union in good
faith at the bargaining table.
I next consider the testimony and evidence offered by Re-
spondent to justify the regressive economic proposals it made
on May 22 and implemented on June 1. At the outset, it
should be observed that, with exception of calendar year
1988, Respondent demonstrated it has operated at a loss
since 1984. Moreover, the facts, supra, clearly reveal that Re-
spondent’s major customers were single-source customers
who operated on a just-in-time basis and those customers
monitored the negotiations closely indicating they would be
compelled to take their work elsewhere if Respondent was
unable to assure that it could continue to supply the parts
they needed. Further, although the record fails to reveal the
extent of Respondent’s debt, I accept as truthful Trentman’s
claim that Respondent was able to stay in business by paying
interest only on its bank loan, stretching out payment to its
vendors, and paying Charles Borum no salary. Each of these
facts suggest that Respondent could not afford the pay raises
and insurance benefits it had offered employees earlier in the
negotiations. Significantly, the Union was aware of Respond-
ent’s financial condition because its auditor had received Re-
spondent’s financial records during the period when bargain-
ing was occurring.
While Respondent’s financial situation was, as contended,
bleak on May 22, that situation had existed throughout the
negotiations for a contract to replace the subsisting agree-
ment. In agreement with counsel for the General Counsel and
counsel for the Charging Party Union, I deem more relevant
evidence which would show that Respondent’s position
changed drastically for the worse on or about the time it took
its ‘‘withdrawal’’ action on April 30, and the time it made
regressive proposals on May 22. Respondent’s strongest evi-
dence is that testimony and documentary evidence which re-
veals that its principal customers were becoming anxious and
were evidencing an intent to take their business elsewhere.
While the state of its customer relations certainly put pres-
sure on it to obtain a ratified contract, the state of those rela-
tions could not arguably support a claim, that a regressive
proposal which was considerably worse than the April 5–6
proposal which the employees had rejected would solve the
customer relations problem.
I turn next to discussion of poker played Texas-style and
the events which occurred during the period May 22 through
June 1. As indicated, supra, witness Steele indicated during
his testimony that Charles Borum stated during the manage-
ment meeting which was held immediately prior to the last
ratification vote taken by bargaining unit members that he
was going to teach the Union how to play poker Texas-style.
I have credited Steele’s claim that the remark was made al-
though Charles Borum claimed he never heard the expression
until Steel gave his testimony. Borum’s denial simply does
not ring true as Steele would have no reason to fabricate
with respect to such a matter, and Paul Borum conceded dur-
ing his testimony that his father was born and reared in
Texas and makes frequent reference to that fact.
As indicated, supra, Charles Borum informed the Union by
letter dated May 24 that he had recently accorded bargaining
unit employees an opportunity to ‘‘pre-ratify’’ its April 5
proposal ‘‘[b]ecause one major customer had given us until
noon today to bring our negotiations to closure before it
started to pull work of of the Plant.’’ The record further re-
veals that just before presenting employees with the ‘‘pre-
ratification’’ opportunity, Respondent had made the May 22
regressive proposal. Patently, in the circumstances described,
employees were placed on notice when given one more
chance to ratify the April 5–6 company proposal that they
might well suffer a significant loss of earnings and benefits
if they rejected the April 5–6 proposal once more. In fact,
they did reject the proposal, thereby calling Respondent’s
bluff to an extent, but they they apparently decided they
1064 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
would not strike when the subsisting collective-bargaining
expired by its terms at midnight on May 30. Thereafter, as
reflected by the record, Respondent informed the Union at
their May 30 negotiation session, and subsequently by letter
dated May 30, that it was going to implement its May 22
proposal on June 1.
During the hearing in the instant case, Respondent’s evi-
dentiary burden was to show that it had adequate reason and
justification for making a regressive bargaining proposal on
May 22. As indicated, supra, I have found that it failed to
give satisfactory explanation for its decision to include re-
gressive noneconomic items in the proposal. I reach a like
conclusion regarding the regressive economic proposals for
the following reasons.
First, I note that the record reveals that Respondent has
failed to establish, as it contends, that its sales were falling
in May 1990. As indicated, supra, sales in April were
$196,733, or some $1133 higher than Respondent’s break-
even figure of $195,600. Significantly, May sales were even
higher at $208,236. Respondent sought to minimize the fact
that the sales during May 1990 were above its break-even
point by offering Respondent’s Exhibit 2, which purports to
show that May was not a profitable month. As many things
other than sales are considered to determine whether a profit
or a loss was experienced during any given time, and the
record fails to reveal what expenses incurred in May 1990
caused Respondent to deem May to be a month in which a
loss was experienced, I accord little weight to Respondent’s
Exhibit 2. Similarly, Respondent’s Exhibit 3 purports to indi-
cate that Respondent’s labor hours decreased dramatically
between mid-March and mid-June 1990. While the data used
by Respondent in the preparation of Respondent’s Exhibit 3
reveals its labor hours did decrease markedly after June 1,
that data reveals that labor hours for April and May were up
substantially over the hours worked in January, February and
the first half of March, and that the total labor hours worked
as of the date of the ‘‘withdrawal’’ action on April 30 were
approximately 1600 hours, while the total hours worked dur-
ing the last week of May were about 1400 hours. Interest-
ingly, during the week of April 7, the time at which the
April 5–6 offer was made, total labor hours worked were ap-
proximately 1500. In the circumstances described, I find Re-
spondent’s labor hours exhibit to be unsupportive of its posi-
tion.
In addition to offering its profit and loss exhibit and its
labor hours exhibit, Respondent placed in evidence (R. Exh.
5) a graph which reveals that its parts received and shipped
to Roll Formed decreased from highs in May between the
300,000 and 350,000 range to the 175,000 to 200,000 range
in June, and on down to the 125,000 to 135,000 range by
July. Presumably, the exhibit was offered to show that Roll
Formed was the company Respondent made reference to in
its May 24 letter to the Union in which it claimed that a
major customer had given it until noon on May 24 to achieve
a ratified contract. Significantly, Respondent failed to estab-
lish during the hearing that Roll Formed or any other cus-
tomer delivered such an ultimatum to it at or near May 24,
1990. Instead, Paul Borum testified that Respondent contin-
ued to plate the same parts for its customers during the pe-
riod under discussion. While Paul Borum did testify that Roll
Formed moved some business to Tri-State Plating, and Ford
sent some business to Stants Plating in Connersville, Indiana,
he failed to indicate when those events occurred. Moreover,
as observed, supra, the record clearly reveals that Respondent
plated significantly more parts for Harrison and for Ford in
May and June 1990 than it had plated for them in April
when it made the April 5–6 proposal to the Union. Finally,
I note that examination of General Counsel’s Exhibit 16, a
record of all parts produced by Respondent on each day dur-
ing the period January 2, 1990, to August 30, 1990, reveals
that on April 2, Respondent produced 20,553 parts for Roll
Formed and the part numbers included 154-1, P002, and
P003. On June 5, it produced 28,737 parts for Roll Formed,
and the part numbers included 154-1, P002, P003, 662-1, and
P5. In the circumstances described, I conclude the probability
is that Respondent continued to plate those items which it
normally plated for Roll Formed during the period extending
from April 2 to June 5, 1990.
Having carefully considered the testimony and documen-
tary evidence offered by Respondent to justify and explain
its April 30 withdrawal of all prior tentative agreements and
understandings, and its regressive contract proposals made on
May 22, I find it has failed to offer satisfactory explanation
or justification of those actions. Accordingly, I find it acted
in bad faith by taking the actions, and it logically follows
that there was no legally cognizable impasse when it imple-
mented its May 22 regressive proposals on June 1, 1990. Pa-
cific Grinding Wheel Co., 220 NLRB 1389 (1975); Car-
penters Local 1780, 244 NLRB 277, 281 (1979).
For the reasons stated, I find that Respondent failed to bar-
gain with the Union in good faith from April 30, 1990, for-
ward in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
Moreover, I specifically find that it violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act by withdrawing its prior tentative agree-
ments and understandings on April 30, 1990, and that it simi-
larly violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by making
regressive contract proposals on May 22, 1990, and imple-
menting those proposals in the absence of an impasse in ne-
gotiations on June 1, 1990.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The Union is the exclusive collective-bargaining agent
of employees in the following collective-bargaining unit
which is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time production and
maintenance employees and all warehouse employees
employed by [Respondent/Employer] at its Dayton,
Ohio, operations and facilities within Local 957’s juris-
diction, not to exceed twenty-five air miles from the
center of Dayton, Ohio, presently located at 1030 Val-
ley Street, Dayton, Ohio, but excluding all office cleri-
cal employees, guards, professional employees, and su-
pervisors, as defined in the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended.
4. By withdrawing from tentative agreements and under-
standings and by making regressive contract proposals with-
out logical explanation or justification, and by implementing
1065DAYTON ELECTROPLATE
10 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended 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.
11 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court
of appeals, the words in the notice reading ‘‘Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board’’ shall read ‘‘Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board.’’
its last contract proposal in the absence of a valid impasse,
Respondent engaged in bad-faith bargaining and it thereby
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act, I shall recommend that it be ordered to cease and desist
therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that by implementing its last contract pro-
posal in the absence of a valid impasse, thereby unilaterally
and unlawfully changing the terms and conditions of its em-
ployees in the appropriate unit, I shall recommend that it be
ordered to restore the terms and conditions of employment
which were in effect on May 30, 1990, and that it make
whole its employees for losses which they experienced as a
result of its unilateral conduct, with interest as set forth in
New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended10
ORDER
The Respondent, Dayton Electroplate, Inc., Dayton, Ohio,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to bargain in good faith with the
Union by withdrawing from tentative agreements and under-
standings and by making regressive contract proposals with-
out logical explanation or justification.
(b) Implementing contract proposals which result in unilat-
eral changes in the terms and conditions of employment of
bargaining unit employees in the absence of a valid impasse
in bargaining.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Restore all terms and conditions of employment to the
status quo existing as of May 30, 1990, before the unilateral
changes were made, to the extent that such changes were
detrimental to the employees.
(b) Make whole employees who were detrimentally af-
fected by the changes in terms and conditions of employ-
ment, with interest in the manner set forth in the Remedy.
(c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board
or its agents for copying, all records and documents nec-
essary to analyze and determine the amount owed to the
union funds.
(d) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive
representative of employees in the following appropriate unit
concerning terms and conditions of employment and, if an
understanding is reached, embody the understanding in a
written agreement:
All full-time and regular part-time production and
maintenance employees and all warehouse employees
employed by [Respondent/Employer] at its Dayton,
Ohio, operations and facilities within Local 957’s juris-
diction, not to exceed twenty-five air miles from the
center of Dayton, Ohio, presently located at 1030 Val-
ley Street, Dayton, Ohio, but excluding all office cleri-
cal employees, guards, professional employees, and su-
pervisors, as defined in the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended.
(e) Post at its facility in Dayton, Ohio, copies of the at-
tached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’11 Copies of the notice,
on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 9,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representa-
tive, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon re-
ceipt 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, de-
faced, or covered by any other material.
(f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply.
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 vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us
to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain in good faith with
the Union by withdrawing from tentative agreements and un-
derstandings and by making regressive contract proposals
without logical explanation or justification.
WE WILL NOT implement contract proposals which result
in unilateral changes in the terms and conditions of employ-
ment of bargaining unit employees in the absence of a valid
impasse in bargaining.
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 restore all terms and conditions of employment
to the status quo existing as of May 30, 1990, before the uni-
lateral changes were made, to the extent that such changes
were detrimental to the employees.
WE WILL make whole employees who were detrimentally
affected by the changes in terms and conditions of employ-
ment, with interest in the manner set forth in the remedy sec-
tion of this decision.
1066 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL on request, bargain with the Union as the exclu-
sive representative of employees in the following appropriate
unit concerning terms and conditions of employment and, if
an understanding is reached, embody the understanding in a
written agreement:
All full-time and regular part-time production and
maintenance employees and all warehouse employees
employed by [Respondent/Employer] at its Dayton,
Ohio, operations and facilities within Local 957’s juris-
diction, not to exceed twenty-five air miles from the
center of Dayton, Ohio, presently located at 1030 Val-
ley Street, Dayton, Ohio, but excluding all office cleri-
cal employees, guards, professional employees, and su-
pervisors, as defined in the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended.
DAYTON ELECTROPLATE, INC.