Dura-Vent Corporation

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 30, 1981

257 N.L.R.B. 430 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Dura-Vent Corporation and Sheet Metal Workers
International Association, Local Union No. 355
of Northern California, AFL-CIO. Case 20-
CA-15339
July 30, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 4, 1981, Administrative Law Judge Clif-
ford H. Anderson issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding.' Thereafter, Respondent and the
Charging Party filed exceptions and supporting
briefs. Subsequently, the General Counsel filed an
answering brief in opposition to the exceptions
filed by Respondent.
The National Labor Relations Board has consid-
ered the record and the attached Decision in light
of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to
affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the
Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recom-
mended Order.2
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Dura-Vent
Corporation, Redwood City, California, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the said recommended Order.
On May 5, 1981, the Administrative Law Judge issued an erratum to
his Decision.
Respondent has excepted, illter alia, to the Administrative Law
Judge's recommendation that it be ordered to bargain with the Charging
Party, submitting that such a order is improper because a question con-
cerning representation has been raised in Case 20-RC 15184. We find no
merit in Respondent's exception. The Board authorized the Regional Di-
rector to process Case 20-RC 15184 to a conclusion in the face of the
outstanding complaint in the instant case because it concluded that a fair
election could still be conducted. See NLRB Casehandling Manual (Part
Two) Representation Proceedings, sec. 11730.5. Further, we note that the
Administrative Law Judge's recommended Order is narrowly drawn.
Rather than requiring Respondent to bargain generally with the Charging
Party, it merely requires Respondent to engage in limited bargaining to
remedy the precise unfair labor practice found. See par. 2 (a) of the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge's recommended Order. Under the circumstances
herein, we conclude that such a remedial order is appropriate.
DECISION
STA'TEMENT OF THE CASE
CLIFFORD H. ANDERSON, Administrative Law Judge:
This matter was heard before me on March 10, 1981, at
San Francisco, California, pursuant to a complaint and
notice of hearing issued by the Regional Director for
Region 20 of the National Labor Relations Board on
June 27, 1980, based on a charge filed on May 8, 1980,
by Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local
Union No. 355 of Northern California, AFL-CIO (the
Charging Party or the Union) against Dura-Vent Corpo-
ration (Respondent).
The complaint, as amended orally at the hearing, al-
leges that Respondent eliminated an employee classifica-
tion from a unit represented by the Charging Party with-
out offering the Charging Party an opportunity to meet
and bargain regarding the elimination in violation of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended (the Act). It further alleges that Respondent
accomplished this change by offering employees in the
classification increased wages and benefits if they accept-
ed promotions out of the unit, by threatening demotions
if they refused, and by granting increases to those em-
ployees who accepted the new position, in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Respondent denies it has vio-
lated the Act.
All parties were given full opportunity to participate
at the hearing,' to introduce relevant evidence, to exam-
ine and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally, and to
file post-hearing briefs.
Upon the entire record herein, including post-hearing
briefs submitted by the General Counsel, Respondent,
and the Charging Party, and from my observation of the
witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT 2
1. JURISDICTION
Respondent is a California corporation with a place of
business in Redwood City, California, where it is en-
gaged in the manufacture and sale of metal products. In
the course of its business operations Respondent annually
enjoys a gross dollar volume of business in excess of
$500,000 and sells and ships products of a value in excess
of $50,000 directly from its Redwood City facility to
points outside the State of California.
11. LABOR ORGANIZATION
The Charging Party is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
At the commencement of the hearing a representative of United Elec-
trical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, moved for permission to
make a sound recording of the proceeding. The motion was denied.
Immediately thereafter a representative of KPIX, Channel 5, a local
television station, moved for permission to film portions of the proceed-
ing. The General Counsel and the Charging Party opposed the motion. I
denied the motion based on the Board's traditional position opposing
filming in the courtroom. See, for example, the National Labor Relations
Board Administrative Law Judge's manual, par. 17118.1. 1 judicially
notice that recent statutory and decisional law increasingly admits of
media access to courtrooms. In my view, however, if the Board's posi-
tion regarding such activities is to be changed it should be done by the
Hoard and not by an administrative law judge.
" There was essentially no dispute concerning relevant facts. Unless
otherwise noted these findings are based on the pleadings, stipulations,
admissions, unchallenged documents of the parties, and uncontested testi-
mony of credible witnesses.
257 NLRB No. 83
430
DURA-VENT CORPORATION
111. THE AI.LEGED UNFAIR ABOR PRACI'ICES
A. The Events
1. Background
Since 1965, the Charging Party has represented em-
ployees of Respondent in the following unit:
All sheet metal production workers and trainees, in-
cluding local pick-up and delivery truck drivers; ex-
cluding all other employees, office clerical employ-
ees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
The unit is an appropriate unit for purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act. The parties have negotiated a series of collective-
bargaining agreements, including one effective by its
terms from December 1, 1977, through January 15, 1981.
That contract set wage and benefit rates for various clas-
sifications of employees within the unit. Included in the
contract and in the unit are the classifcations "leadman"
and "working foreman."
2. Respondent decides to change its employee
classification 3
In or about April 1980 Respondent's labor relations
consultant advised Respondent that it should consider
taking certain actions to make the Employer's operations
better able to resist a possible strike by unit employees. It
was determined that Respondent could better function
during a strike by eliminating the working foreman clas-
sification and creating a new class of supervisors who
would be explicitly excluded from the unit and aligned
with management rather than the Union in any dispute.
3. The management-employee meeting and
subsequent changes4
On or about May 1, 1980,5 Respondent's agents met
with the employees who were employed in the classifica-
tion working foreman. 6 The employees were told by Re-
' The advice to initiate a change in the unit and Respondent's actions
thereon were not disputed by Respondent. These findings are based on
the correspondence between the parties and on the credible and undenied
testimony of Michael Eisenscher that he heard Ray ;etterlein, Respond-
ent's admitted agent and labor relations consultant, explain his advice to
Respondent and Respondent's motive for making the changes described.
Such testimony is not hearsay and may therefore be received for the
truth of the matter. See Fed. R. Evid 801(d)(2)
T lhe General Counsel adduced credible testimony, concerning this
meeting from Del Rio, Corvello, and Florez With the sole exception of
the identity of one of several admitted agents of Respondent attending
the meeting, Respondent did not dispute the testimony of the witnesses.
The parties further stipulated that II other employees at the meeting
would have testified consistently with the above-named employees What
follows is a cursory composite of the undisputed events augmented by
stipulations of the parties concerning subsequent wage changes.
' All dates are 19SO unless otherwise indicated.
6These employees u ere:
Jose Alvarez
Miguel Arreola
Salvador Chacon
Mariano Chavez
LUriel Chavez
Cesar Lopez
Felix Medina
Carlos Monterruhio
Lotuis Nuncz
Ramon Ornelas
spondent's agents that they were being offered new jobs
classified "supervisor" with attendant wage increases of
$1 per hour and certain fringe benefit increases. The in-
creases were to be coupled with concomitant removal
from inclusion within the unit, exclusion from coverage
under the collective-bargaining agreement, and loss of
union membership. Those who did not accept the pro-
motions were to be demoted to a lower unit classification
paying 50 cents per hour less.
A second meeting was held with the employees a few
days later at which time most elected to accept the su-
pervisor positions. In some cases additional individual
conversations were held between agents of Respondent
and employees before the position was accepted. In any
case all the employees soon accepted the new positions
and received the promised increases effective on or
about May 5.7 The employees were required to sign a
letter dated May 1, on Respondent's stationery, ad-
dressed to the Charging Party which stated:
The following people have accepted supervisory
positions at Dura-Vent and will no longer be Union
members. They are requesting withdrawal cards
and a refund of any dues which they had paid
ahead.
The letter was thereafter sent to the Union.
The employees had been union members and had
signed union checkoff forms provided for them under
the contract, 8 whereby the Employer deducted from em-
ployee wages and remitted to the Union periodic dues
payments. Upon the promotion of the employees in ques-
tion, Respondent stopped remission of their dues to the
Union.
4. The supervisory status of the employees
The pleadings establish that no employees in the unit
are statutory supervisors and further that the contractual
classifications, including working foreman, are unit posi-
tions. Thus, technically the pleadings have met the Gen-
eral Counsel's burden of showing that the employees
classified as working foremen were employees rather
than statutory supervisors prior to their promotion and
change in job titles. Further, the record contains credible
testimony from Monterrubio, Del Rio, and Ramon Orne-
las that, as working foremen, they did not have the au-
Antonio Del Rio
Alfonso Gonzalez
Tony Ornelas
Arturo Valencia
Monterrubio at the time was classified as a leadman apparently through a
clerical error. When he subsequently pointed out his leadman status to
management, he was immediately promoted to working foreman For all
relevant purposes he may he treated as similiarly situated with the work-
ing foreman.
' All the employees involved received SI-per-hour increases save for
Mariano Chavez and Tony Ornelas, who recceied increases of $1.50 per
hour, and Arturo Valencia, who received an increase of S1.25 per hour
Antonio Del Rio did not initially accept the position and received an ini-
tial sage decrease of 50 cents per hour Soon thereafter he suffered a
medically caused employmentt hiatus Upon his return to the job he ac-
cepted the promotion and received the promised increase.
H While the contract contains a union-security clause, i effect 5,as su-
perseded in February 19) as the result of a union-security clause decerti-
fication election
431
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
thority to hire, fire, or effectively recommend the hire or
fire of employees. Nor did they grant employees vaca-
tion or sick leave or participate in the handling of em-
ployee grievances. While there was evidence that the
employees had a role in the general direction and train-
ing of the employees and in maintaining product quality
control, this evidence is clearly insufficient to support a
finding that the working foremen were supervisors
within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
As "supervisors" following their promotion the em-
ployees spent a substantial part of their time engaged in
unit work. ' While the General Counsel took the position
that the employees acting in the newly created classifica-
tion exercised or were authorized to exercise the authori-
ties described in Section 2(11) of the Act, the record is
not clear on the issue. 0 In view of my determination,
infra, it is unnecessary to make any findings concerning
the supervisory status of the employees after their pro-
motion.
5. Contacts between Respondent and the Union
The Union received the list of employees who wished
to withdraw from the Union on or about May 3 or 4.
This was the first notice received by the Union regard-
ing the events in question.
The Union's business manager thereafter spoke by tele-
phone with Respondent's agents and informed them they
could not "arbitrarily transfer the people out of the bar-
gaining unit." On May 13 Ray Vetterlein wrote the
Union and described in some detail the changes made. In
his letter he noted the Union's earlier expressions of pro-
test regarding the changes. He offered to meet with the
Union but did not offer to reconsider the changes. His
letter noted in part:
It is really up to you. I'm hardly going to get
into a dispute with you at this point as by the time
we got the matter to arbitration the contract would
expire anyway so anything we did in a formal pro-
ceeding would be fairly academic.
The Union thereafter pursued its case through the
Board while Respondent sought to handle any differ-
ences under the contract grievance procedures.
B. A nulyssis and Conclusion "'
Respondent threatened employees with wage reduc-
tions unless they accepted different positions which re-
9 There is also no doubt and I fild that the a;mounln of unit ki ork done
by the promoted employees was significant. The transfer of this work
had a substantial impact on the unit.
"' Respondent i creating the position clearly llfornmed the promoted
employees that hey were aulthorized to exercise supervisor authority
There is little evidence that the employees in actuality assunied uch alu-
thority
" At the commeencement of the hearilng Respondent mnoved that thllis
case be deferred to the arbitration process conltained in the contract. I
denied that motion and realffirm that rulinig here. 'Ihe issues il the instant
case go to( the scope of Respondell' t s recognition of the Ulion, the stalu-
tory rights of the eniplosNees involvled. and the legal rights of Respondent
to undertake the actions it did. These matters are wilhin the special corn-
petence of the Board rather thann ii arbitralor. See, c g. h1i t Inaconda
Company. 224 NL RI 1(041 (lQ76). enr fd 578 F 2d 1385 (9th Cir 1978):
quired them to abandon their position within the unit,
their union membership, and the rights of employees
generally under the Act. They were to become agents of
management. Such conduct by Respondent required em-
ployees to forgo their existing rights or suffer a monetary
penalty. In so doing Respondent violated Section 8(a)(l)
of the Act.
Respondent also offered to promote and did promote
those employees employed as working foremen to posi-
tions outside the unit, thereby eliminating the classifica-
tion of working foreman and assigning unit work to em-
ployees not covered by the collective-bargaining agree-
ment. Respondent undertook these actions without pro-
viding the Union with notice of or an opportunity to
bargain regarding the changes. Confronted with the fait
accompli, the Union was thereafter denied an opportunity
to bargain effectively over the changes. Respondent's
willingness to handle the matter under the contract
grievance language is not the legal equivalent of an offer
to bargain.
No dispute exists that an employer may promote indi-
viduals in the unit to supervisory position outside the
unit. The General Counsel's cited case, Kendall College,
228 NLRB 1083 (1977), and cases cited therein stand for
the proposition that the removal of employees in a classi-
fication in the bargaining unit by means of the investiture
of supervisory status creates a duty to bargain concern-
ing the action if a significant amount of unit work is in-
volved. Thus, if the newly created classification carries
with it supervisory responsibilities which have an impact
on the unit, then Respondent violates the Act if it unilat-
erally implemented such changes. There is no doubt that
a significant amount of unit work is involved herein. I
have not found that the new allegedly supervisory posi-
tions were supervisory within the meaning of Section
2(11) of the Act on this record. Were the employees in
the supervisory position not statutory supervisors, how-
ever, a violation would still occur and the remedy would
be no less. This is so because when employees are unilat-
erally removed from the unit-whether they remain em-
ployees or are transmuted into statutory supervisors-the
Union is denied its opportunity to bargin over changes
having a significant impact on the unit it represents.
Thus, I find a violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act as
alleged, without determining the statutory supervisory
status of the employees after receiving the title "supervi-
sor" in May.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and the entire
record herein, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. At all times material herein, the Union has been and
is now the exclusive bargaining representative of Re-
Waron Pow lr CSho ay/ (i'mlpayl. /in., 230 N RB 576 (1977); General
AImcruan lrun portaton Corporation. 228 NI. RIi 808 (1977).
432
DURA-VENT CORPORATION
spondent's employees in the following unit which is ap-
propriate within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All sheet metal production workers and trainees, in-
cluding local pick-up and delivery truck drivers; ex-
cluding all other employees, office clerical employ-
ees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
4. On or about May 1, 1980, by threatening the em-
ployees listed in footnote 6 of this Decision with demo-
tions and wage reductions unless they accepted positions
outside the bargaining unit described above, Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
5. Respondent, by undertaking the following changes
in employee working conditions in May 1980 without
prior notice to or without affording the Union an oppor-
tunity to meet and bargain with respect to the action and
its effects, has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act:
(a) By offering to promote and promoting the employ-
ees listed in footnote 6 of this Decision to positions out-
side the bargaining unit.
(b) By granting increases in said employees' wages and
benefits.
(c) By eliminating the unit classification "working
foreman."
(d) By assigning bargaining unit work to individuals
not covered by the collective-bargaining agreement.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMI-I)Y
Having found that Respondent has engaged in viola-
tions of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, I shall order it
to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirma-
tive actions to remedy the unfair labor practices and to
effectuate the purposes of the Act. 12
As I have found that Respondent has failed to meet
and bargain with the Union concerning the terms and
conditions of employment of the employees formerly
classified as working foremen, I shall affirmatively order
Respondent to do so. As the Board ordered in Kendall
College, supra, and for the reasons cited therein, I shall
order Respondent to restore the status quo ante regarding
the shift of employees outside the bargaining unit, condi-
tioned upon the affirmative desire of the employees as
expressed through their bargaining agent.
A normal remedy for employee losses in wages and
benefits through unilateral changes is a make-whole
order. The Board does not require that employees forgo
increases in wages and benefits. Where it is impossible to
determine if the unilateral changes in their entirety have
been detrimental or beneficial, the Board issues a restora-
tion order conditioned upon the affirmative desires of the
affected employees as expressed through their bargaining
agent. Kendall College, supra, Herman Sausage Co., Inc.,
122 NLRB 168 (1958). 1 shall do so here.
If the bargaining representative elects such a restora-
tion of benefits, a general order requiring Respondent to
make all omitted payments required under the contract
12 The parties agreed that any remedial notice to employees should
appear in both Spanish and English language ersions.
had it been applied to the employees after their promo-
tion here is sufficient. Any specific determination of
amounts and the identity of recipients of the payments
will be deferred to the compliance stage of these pro-
ceedings if it becomes necessary. J. F. Swick Insulation
Co., Inc., 247 NLRB 626 (1980).
The Union requested that it be reimbursed for the loss
of dues payments it would have received from the em-
ployees who signed the employer-prepared checkoff can-
cellation and membership resignation letter.13 While not
separately alleged as a violation of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1), Respondent's wrongful actions clearly included its
repudiation of the checkoff provision. It was responsible
for the employees' withdrawal of their previous checkoff
requests and their loss of union membership. There is un-
challenged evidence that the promoted employees had
had their union dues remitted by checkoff up until the
time of the signing and sending of the withdrawal letter
and further evidence that no dues were received by the
Union thereafter. Under these circumstances, the Board
requires that the Union be made whole for its loss. J. F.
SwKick Insulation Co., Inc., supra; Ogle Protection Service,
Inc., 183 NLRB 682 (1970).
If the Union elects to have previous conditions re-
stored, calculations of the sums and payments necessary
to make employees whole shall be calculated in accord-
ance with normal Board policy. See F: W. Woolworth
Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950). In that event, however,
dues payments to the Union may be offset against such
payments in the manner set forth in Ogle Protection Serv-
ice. Inc., supra.
Appropriate interest on any amounts due shall be cal-
culated and paid in accordance with the Board's policies
set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716
(1962), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651
(1977).
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of
law, and the entire record, I hereby issue the following
recommended:
ORDER '
The Respondent, Dura-Vent Corporation, Redwood
City, California, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Threatening employees with demotions and wage
reductions unless they accept positions outside the bar-
gaining unit.
(b) Taking the following action unilaterally without
giving the Union notice and an opportunity to bargain:
':' Respondent opposed the Union's requested remedy. The General
Counsel did not join or oppose this request, even though the General
Counsel had prior notice of the Union's request The Union requested
this rentedy at the hearing and again in its brief (which was filed signifi-
cantly earlier than were those f the other parties). On brief the General
Counsel sought "all appropriate relief' without greater specificity
I t the eeut no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of
the Rule, and Regulations of the National L.abor Relations Board, the
findings. coinclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided
in Sec 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations. he adopted by the Board and
hecome its findings. conclusions. and Order. and all objections thereto
shall he deemed %saised for all purposes
433
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(1) Offering to promote and promoting unit employees
to positions outside the bargaining unit.
(2) Granting increases in employee wages and chang-
ing employee benefits.
(3) Eliminating the bargaining unit job classification
"working foreman."
(4) Assigning bargaining unit work to individuals not
covered by the collective-bargaining agreement.
(c) Requiring employees to withdraw from the Union,
canceling employee dues-checkoff agreements, and fail-
ing and refusing to withhold and remit to the Union dues
moneys consistent with valid employee authorized
checkoff forms authorized under a valid collective-bar-
gaining agreement.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative actions to remedy
the unfair labor practices found and to effectuate the
policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request meet and bargain collectively with
Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local
Union No. 355 of Northern California, AFL-CIO, re-
garding the terms and conditions of employment of those
employees formerly classified as "working foreman."
(b) If the Union so desires, revoke and cease utilizing
the new employee classification "supervisor" and restore
to their previous classification of "working foreman"
those employees who were reclassified from "working
foreman" to "supervisor."
(c) If the Union so desires, revoke and cease giving
effect to the wage and benefit levels paid to the employ-
ees who were reclassified "supervisors" from "working
foreman" and restore their previous wages and benefits.
(d) If the Union so desires, make employees who were
reclassified "supervisors" from "working foreman"
whole for any loss of wages and fringe benefits they may
have suffered by virtue of their loss of contractually es-
tablished wages and benefits; said make-whole require-
ment, with appropriate interest, shall include appropriate
health, welfare, pension, and other payments on behalf of
employees to be determined consistently with the portion
of this Decision entitled "The Remedy."
(e) Make the Union whole for any loss of dues, with
appropriate interest thereon, suffered as a result of Re-
spondent's actions in causing employees to withdraw
from the Union and in failing to comply with the check-
off provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement, as
provided in the portion of this Decision entitled "The
Remedy."
(f) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the
Board or its agents, for examination and copying, all re-
cords and other data necessary and appropriate to allow
calculation of the payments due under the terms of this
Order and to allow verification of Respondent's compli-
ance with this Order's terms.
(g) Post at its place of business in Redwood City, Cali-
fornia, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix" 5 and a Spanish language equivalent thereof. Copies
1' In the event that 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 Pursu-
of said notices, on forms provided by the Regional Di-
rector for Region 20, after being duly signed by Re-
spondent's representative, shall be posted for 60 consecu-
tive days thereafter, in conspicious places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(h) Notify the Regional Director for Region 20, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps it has taken to comply herewith.
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing at which all sides had an opportunity to
present evidence and state their positions, the National
Labor Relations Board found that we have violated the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and has or-
dered us to post this notice.
The Act gives employees the following rights:
To engage in self-organization
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choice
To engage in activities together for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid
or protection
To refrain from the exercise of any or all such
activities.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with demo-
tions and wage reductions if they do not accept po-
sitions outside the bargaining unit.
WE WIl.L NOT take the following actions unilater-
ally without giving Sheet Metal Workers Interna-
tional Association, Local Union No. 355 of North-
ern California, AFL-CIO, notice and an opportuni-
ty to bargain concerning the proposed actions and
their consequences:
Offer to promote and promote unit employees
to positions outside the bargaining unit.
Grant increases in employee wages and change
employee benefits.
Eliminate the bargaining unit job classification
"working foreman."
Assign bargaining unit work to individuals not
covered by the collective-bargaining agreement.
WE WILL NOT require employees to withdraw
from the Union, cancel their dues-checkoff agree-
ments, or fail and refuse to withhold from employee
wages and remit to the Union dues moneys consist-
434
DURA-VENT CORPORATION
ent with valid employee authorized checkoff provi-
sions pursuant to a valid collective-bargaining
agreement.
WE Wll.l NOT in any like or related manner in-
terfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7
of the Act.
WE WILL upon request meet and bargain collec-
tively with Sheet Metal Workers International As-
sociation, Local Union No. 355 of Northern Califor-
nia, AFL-CIO, regarding the terms and conditions
of employment of those employees formerly classi-
fied as "working foremen."
WE Wii.L, if the Union so desires, revoke and
cease utilizing the new employee classification "su-
pervisors" and restore to their previous classifica-
tion, "working foreman," those employees who
were reclassified from "working foreman" to "su-
pervisor."
WE WI.l , if the Union so desires, revoke and
cease giving effect to the wage and benefit levels
paid to the employees who were reclassified "super-
visors" from "working foreman."
WE WILL, if the Union so desires, make employ-
ees who were reclassified "supervisors" from
"working foreman" whole for the loss of wages and
fringe benefits they may have suffered by virtue of
their loss of contractually established wages and
benefits; said make-whole requirement shall include
appropriate interest and also appropriate health,
welfare, pension, and other payments on behalf of
employees, with interest.
WE WILL pay to the Union any loss of dues, with
appropriate interest, suffered as a result of our
action in causing former "working foreman" em-
ployees to withdraw from the Union and in failing
to comply with the checkoff provisions of the col-
lective-bargaining agreement.
DURA-VENT CORPORATION
435