Evans Rotork, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1980

251 N.L.R.B. 660 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

6rio DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Evans Rotork, Inc. arid International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District
Lodge 49, Local 519, AFL-CIO. Cases 28-CA-
5393-1, 28-CA-5450, 28-CA-5453, and 28-
CA-5453-2
August 27, 1980
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBIRS
JENKINS AND TRUISDAI.E
Upon charges filed on June 21 and July 25 and
30, 1979, by International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 49, Local
519, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, and duly
served on Evans Rotork, Inc., herein called Re-
spondent, the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director
for Region 28, issued a second amended consoli-
dated complaint, herein called the complaint, and
notice of hearing on January Il, 1980, against Re-
spondent, alleging that Respondent had engaged in
and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5)
and (I) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the
charges and complaint and notice of hearing before
an administrative law judge were duly served on
the parties to this proceeding.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the
complaint alleges in substance that on June 20,
1979, following a Board election in Case 28-RC-
3534, the Union was duly certified as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of Respond-
ent's employees in the unit found appropriate;' and
that, commencing on or about October 27, 1978,
and at all times thereafter, Respondent has refused,
and continues to date to refuse, to bargain collec-
tively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining
representative, although the Union has requested
and is requesting it to do so. Thereafter, Respond-
ent filed its answer to the complaint admitting in
part, and denying in part, the allegations in the
complaint and raising certain "affirmative de-
fenses."
On January 24, 1980, counsel for the General
Counsel filed directly with the Board a Motion for
Summary Judgment, with exhibits attached. Subse-
quently, on February 6, 1980, the Board issued an
order transferring the proceeding to the Board and
i Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceed-
ing. Case 28-RC 3534. as the term "record" is defined in Sec 102.68 and
102 06(g} of the Board's Rules and Regulationls Series 8, as amended. See
I. /l Il'crosv ern lm ,. Inc., h66 N R 93K (1967), enfd. 388 F 2d 683 (4th
Cir 198):. (Goldn .lge Bverage ('. 1h7 NlRB 151 (1967), efd 415
I 2d 26 (Slh Cir 1969);: interlrpe o. ( Pencllo, 269 F Supp 573
I)DC Va 1967); 1bllett Corp.. 164 NLRHB 378 (1967). enfd 397 :2d 41
(7th Cir 96h): Sec 9d) of the NI.RA. ;s amended.
251 NLRB No. 73
a Notice To Show Cause why the General Coun-
sel's Motion for Summary Judgment should not be
granted. Respondent thereafter filed a response to
the Notice To Show Cause entitled "Response in
Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment."
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board makes the following:
Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment
In its answer to the complaint and its response to
the Notice To Show Cause, Respondent admits the
factual allegations of the complaint, including the
request and refusal to bargain. However, it asserts
as an "affirmative defense" that the Union's certifi-
cation was improper on the basis of Respondent's
objections to the election in the underlying repre-
sentation proceeding. Respondent further contends
that the failure of the Board to grant a hearing on
its objections deprived it of due process and that it
is entitled to a hearing on these issues.
Review of the record herein, including the
record in Case 28-RC-3534, reveals that, pursuant
to a Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent
Election, an election was conducted on October
27, 1978, which resulted in a vote of 32 for, and 25
against, the Union, with no challenged ballots.
Thereafter, Respondent filed timely objections to
conduct affecting the results of the election alleg-
ing, in substance, that (1) the Union had offered to
pay strike benefits to those employees only who
joined the Union prior to the election, and (2) the
Union had offered to waive initiation fees for those
employees only who signed authorization cards
before the election and who agreed to vote for the
Union.
After investigation, the Acting Regional Direc-
tor issued a Report on Objections in which he rec-
ommended that Respondent's objections be over-
ruled on their entirety and that the Union be certi-
fied. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions, sup-
plemental exceptions, and second and third supple-
mental exceptions to the Acting Regional Direc-
tor's report. On June 20, 1979, the Board, having
considered the Acting Regional Director's report,
all of Respondent's exceptions thereto, and the
entire record, adopted the findings and recommen-
dations of the Acting Regional Director and certi-
fied the Union as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in the unit stipulated to
FVANS ROTO)RK, [NC'(
be appropriate.2 It thus appears that Respondent is
attempting in this proceeding to relitigate issues
fully litigated and finally determined in the repre-
sentation proceeding.
It is well settled that in the absence of newly dis-
covered or previously unavailable evidence or spe-
cial circumstances a respondent in a proceeding al-
leging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled
to relitigate issues which were or could have been
litigated in a prior representation proceeding.3
All issues raised by Respondent in this proceed-
ing were or could have been litigated in the prior
representation proceeding, and Respondent does
not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discov-
ered or previously unavailable evidence, nor does
it allege that any special circumstances exist herein
which would require the Board to reexamine the
decision made in the representation proceeding. We
therefore find that Respondent has not raised any
issue which is properly litigable in this unfair labor
practice proceeding.
In this proceeding Respondent contends that due
process entitles it to a hearing on its objections to
the election. Prior to adopting the findings and rec-
ommendations of the Acting Regional Director's
Report on Objections, the Board considered the
report, Respondent's exceptions, and the entire
record in this case. By its adoption of the report
recommending that Respondent's objections be
overruled, the Board necessarily found that the ob-
jections raised no substantial or material issues war-
ranting a hearing.4 Further, it is well established
that the parties do not have an absolute right to a
hearing on objections to an election. It is only
when the moving party presents a prima facie
showing of substantial and material issues which
would warrant setting aside the election that it is
entitled to an evidentiary hearing. It is clear that,
absent arbitrary action, this qualified right to a
hearing satisfies the constitutional requirements of
due process. 5 Accordingly, we grant the Motion
for Summary Judgment.
On the basis of the entire record, the Board
makes the following:
2 Evans Rotork. Inc.. 242 NlRB 1317 (Member ruesdale dissenting in
part).
I See Pittsburgh Platte Glass Co. N.L.R 13 . 3 L4, 14t. 62 (1941):
Rules and Regulations of the Board. Secs 102 67(f) and 102h1(c)
4 Madisonville Concrete Co, .4 Division of Corunt EdIadurds. Inc. 22()
NLRB h668 (1975); Evansville .Auto Parts. Inc. 217 NLRB hi) (1975) Fur-
thermore, in its Decision and Certification of Representative. the Board
majority specifically found that the Acting Regional Director's adminis-
trative investigation had "resolsed all substantial and material issues (of
fact" with respect to Respondent's objection in:oll ing the Ulnion', al-
leged vwaier of initiation fees 242 NlRB 1317
' G7E Lenkurt. Incorporated. 21g NI.RB 929 (1975): Hlcavoen/v tVl/li
Ski Area. a California Corpration. and Helavenl talhe. a Partnership 215
NLRB 734 (1974); .4malgamated Clothing Worker qof .4rmrica [Winficld
Manufacturing Clompany. Inc] N.L.R.R. 424 F 2d 18, 828 (D C Cir
1970)
FINI)INGS OI- FACT
I. IHI HUSINESS OF RtFSPONI)INI
Respondent, a corporation organized under the
laws of the State of Arizona, where it maintains its
principal place of business in Glendale, Arizona, is
engaged in the business of manufacturing machin-
ery. During the 12 months preceding issuance of
the complaint, a representative period, Respondent,
in the course and conduct of its operations, pur-
chased and received goods valued in excess of
$50,000 which were transported in interstate com-
merce and delivered to Respondent's place of busi-
ness directly from suppliers located outside the
State of Arizona.
We find, on the basis of the foregoing. that Re-
spondent is, and has been at all times material
herein, an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and
that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
II. THE I.ABOR OR(;ANIZAI ION INVOI VTl)
International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 49, Local 519.
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II1. THEI UNFAIR ABOR PRACTICES
A. The Representation Proceeding
1. The unit
The following employees of Respondent consti-
tute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining
purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All production, maintenance, shipping and re-
ceiving employees, clerical employees, sales-
men, truckdrivers, and draftsmen employed by
Respondent at its 5530 North 51st Avenue,
Glendale, Arizona, location; excluding confi-
dential secretary, watchmen, guards and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
2. The certification
On October 27, 1978, a majority of the employ-
ees of Respondent in said unit, in a secret-ballot
election conducted under the supervision of the
Regional Director for Region 28, designated the
Union as their representative for the purpose of
collective bargaining with Respondent. The Union
was certified as the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in said unit on June 20,
1979, and the Union continues to be such exclusive
hhlI
662 I)EICIS()NS ()I NAII()NAI IAI()R REL.ATI()NS 3()ARI)
bargaining representative within the meaning of
Section 9(a) of the Act.
B. 7The Request lo Bargain and Respondent'
ReJusal
Commencing on or about July 6, 1979, and at all
times thereafter, the Union has requested Respond-
ent to meet and bargain collectively with it as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all
the employees in the above-described unit. Com-
mencing on or about July 6, 1979, and continuing
at all times thereafter to date, Respondent has re-
fused, and continues to refuse, to meet and bargain
with the Union as the exclusive representative for
collective bargaining of all employees in said unit.
Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since
on or about July 6, 1979, and at all times thereaf-
ter, refused to bargain collectively with the Union
as the exclusive representative of the employees in
the appropriate unit, and that, by such refusal, Re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act."
C. Additional Violations of Section 8(a)(5) and
(I) of the Act
The complaint alleges, and Respondent admits,
that Respondent engaged in the following conduct
after the election but prior to the Union's certifica-
tion: (1) sometime in January 1979, Respondent
unilaterally assigned job classifications to the em-
ployees in the above-described unit and discontin-
ued its prior practice of wage increases to said em-
ployees on the anniversary date of said employees'
employment with Respondent; (2) during the
period from January I through March 31, 1979,
Respondent, by its agents Les Miller and Robert
Perez, met individually with each of the unit em-
ployees and evaluated each for the purposes of im-
plementation of wage increases; and (3) during that
same period, Respondent unilaterally granted the
unit employees wage increases pursuant to the
aforementioned evaluations.
t; I he cilplain l additionally allege, Ithat "at all timnes since Octibcr
27. 178. andl cotlIinuinig to date" the Uli on has requested alnd is request-
lilg Respoldeiilt (o recoglite it as the exclusive hargainlilng repletcllalil e
eof the ullit employees. and that Respioldelnt at all tllns sce thla date,
has irlaled Sec 8ta){5) and (I) Tf tlhe Act hy failing and refusirg t rec-
ogi/r ir hargain with the Ullniln We ind it Ullntecessary to reach the
issure if hether Resplondent' refusal t recognil/c arid bargain itlh Ihle
Inlioni prirr Il the t iion's certification aid its July 6. 17L), request to
meet iand bargain conlstitutes, i itself, a violarion of the Act Itt this
regalrd. e nlite hat tile crlliplainll aleges, aid Respiiondei t adlrits. the
critllllrllllg nature ilf ithte liiorl' requests Furthermore, as discussed
htelx:. Rsprondelntl urilateral conduct durilg the period betscenl ()Oclo
her 27 1q78, arid the liirllo's certification lli i June 2)0, 179 ah vi aliti e
Ofi Se 8(aI)(5) and ( r f ie Act arid ur ()rder ili respect to such
iolatilons effectively rmedies Repoilicrlnt miscoldduct during the pre-
certificatiion period
It is well established that an employer violates
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act when it makes
unilateral changes in terms and conditions of em-
ployment during the pendency of objections to an
election which eventually results in the certifica-
tion of the union. See Mike O'Connor Chevrolet-
Buick-GMC Co., Inc., and Pat O'Connor Chevrolet-
Buick-GMC Co.. Inc., 209 NLRB 701 (1974). The
above-described unilateral changes instituted by
Respondent clearly relate to subjects involving
terms and conditions of employment. Accordingly,
we conclude, as alleged in the complaint, that, by
the foregoing conduct, Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act.
The complaint alleges, and Respondent admits,
that since on or about June 22, 1979, following the
Union's certification, Respondent has engaged in
the following conduct: (1) bypassing the Union and
dealing directly with the employees by announcing
a proposed layoff of employees; (2) bypassing the
Union and dealing directly with unit employees by
soliciting proposed contractual terms and negotiat-
ing with its employees concerning a wage increase;
(3) advising the unit employees that it would not
bargain with the Union so long as nonemployees
act as the Union's designated agents; and (4) advis-
ing its employees that it was refusing, and would
continue to refuse, to recognize and bargain with
the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the unit employees. Additionally,
the complaint alleges, and Respondent admits, that,
since on or about July 20, 1979, the Union has re-
quested Respondent to furnish it with the names,
addresses, dates of hire, job classifications, and
wage rates of all employees employed as of July
20, 1979, as well as a lisiting of all employees laid
off or terminated since October 27, 1978, and the
reasons therefor, and that, since the date of that re-
quest, Respondent has failed and refused to furnish
the Union with the requested information. The
complaint further alleges, and we find, that, by the
foregoing conduct, Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 7
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR ABOR
PRACTICF S UPON COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section
II111, above, occurring in connection with the oper-
ations described in section 1, above, have a close,
? In its aIl.su ct I tihe cmrirplaint. Respondent admitt d that, if the
lio was properly certified as the cxclusive collecris.e-hargairinig repre-
crilt atile of Ihe unit employees,, the requested infirmatiilln as. a% al-
leged, ncessarN fr, and rle ail t. he Li]lilni's perfirmalnce if its func-
tI)n A1 tihe xclutsisc eollectii.-hi argailirlng representatise
EV\ANS RFORKK INC. W6
intimate, and substantial relationship to trade, traf-
fic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of com-
merce.
V. THE RENEI)Y
Having found that Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we
shall order that it cease and desist therefrom. We
shall also order that Respondent take affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act. We shall require Respondent, upon request, to
bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu-
sive representative of all employees in the appro-
priate unit, and, if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
Further, we have found that, during the period
that objections to the election were pending, Re-
spondent engaged in unlawful conduct by: (1) uni-
laterally assigning job classifications to unit em-
ployees and discontinuing its prior practice of
wage increases to the unit employees on the anni-
versary date of their employment with Respondent,
and (2) unilaterally granting its unit employees
wage increases. We shall order Respondent to re-
store unit employees to the job classification assign-
ments that they held prior to the unilateral change,
and to make whole any unit employees who may
have suffered any monetary losses by reason of the
aforementioned changes in terms and conditions of
employment in the manner prescribed by F. W.
Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with in-
terest to be computed in accordance with Florida
Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).8 Our
Order, however, is not to be construed as requiring
a rescission of the wage increases and/or benefits
previously granted to unit employees.
We have further found that Respondent unlaw-
fully has refused the Union's request to furnish it
with certain information that is necessary for, and
relevant to, the Union's performance of its function
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
of the unit employees. Therefore, we also shall
order that Respondent, upon request by the Union,
furnish the Union with the information sought.
In order to insure that the employees in the ap-
propriate unit will be accorded the services of their
selected bargaining agent for the period provided
by law, we shall construe the initial period of certi-
fication as beginning on the date Respondent com-
mences to bargain in good faith with the Union as
the recognized bargaining representative in the ap-
propriate unit. See Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc.,
8 Sec. generally. lim Plumbng Heating C., 13.18 NLRB 716 (192)
136 NLRB 785 (1962); Commerce Company d/b/a
Lamar Hlotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328
F.2d 600 (5th Cir. 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817;
Burnett Construction Company. 149 NLRB 1419,
1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (10th Cir. 1965).
The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts
and the entire record, makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS or LAW
1. Evans Rotork, Inc., is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
2. International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 49, Local 519,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All production, maintenance, shipping and re-
ceiving employees, clerical employees, salesmen,
truckdrivers, and draftsmen employed by Respond-
ent at its 5530 North 51st Avenue, Glendale, Ari-
zona, location, excluding confidential secretaries,
watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act.
4. At all times material herein, the above-named
labor organization has been and now is the certified
and exclusive representative of all employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a)
of the Act.
5. By the acts described in section III, above,
Respondent has refused to bargain with the above-
named labor organization as the exclusive bargain-
ing representative of all employees in the appropri-
ate bargaining unit described above, and thereby
has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act.
6. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain, Respond-
ent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced,
and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing,
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board hereby orders that the Respondent,
Evans Rotork, Inc., Glendale, Arizona, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
F\'ANS ROTORK. INC. 663
664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(a) Refusing to recognize and to meet and bar-
gain collectively concerning rates of pay, wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment with International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 49, Local
519, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of its employees in the bargaining unit set
forth below.
(b) Unilaterally assigning job classifications to
unit employees and discontinuing Respondent's
prior practice of wage increases to said employees
on the anniversary date of their employment with
Respondent; meeting individually with each of the
unit employees and evaluating each for purposes of
implementation of wage increases; unilaterally
granting unit employees wage increases; bargaining
directly and on an individual basis with unit em-
ployees by announcing a proposed layoff of em-
ployees; and bargaining directly and on an individ-
ual basis with unit employees by soliciting pro-
posed contractual terms and negotiating with em-
ployees concerning a wage increase.
(c) Advising employees that Respondent will not
bargain with the Union so long as nonemployees
act as the Union's designated agents for such pur-
poses.
(d) Refusing to furnish the Union with the
names, addresses, dates of hire, job classifications,
and wage rates of all employees employed as of
July 20, 1979, as well as a listing of all employees
laid off or terminated since October 27, 1978, and
the reasons therefor.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering
with, restraining, or coercing employees in the ex-
ercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which
the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the
Act:
(a) Upon request, oargain with the above-named
labor organization as the exclusive representative
of all employees in the appropriate unit described
below with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours,
and other terms and conditions employment, and, if
an understanding is reached, embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement. The appropriate
unit is:
All production, maintenance, shipping and re-
ceiving employees, clerical employees, sales-
men, truckdrivers, and draftsmen employed by
Respondent at its 5530 North 51st Avenue,
Glendale, Arizona, location; excluding confi-
dential secretary, watchmen, guards and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
(b) Rescind the unilateral job classification as-
signments made to unit employees in January 1979
and reinstate unit employees to the job classifica-
tion assignments that they held prior to the unilat-
eral job classification assignments.
(c) Reinstate its practice of granting wage in-
creases to employees on the anniversary date of
said employees employment with Respondent.
(d) Make whole any employees who may have
suffered monetary losses by reason of the unilateral
changes specifically described in section III, above,
in the manner described in the section of this Deci-
sion and Order entitled "The Remedy."
(e) Upon request, furnish the Union with the
names, addresses, dates of hire, job classifications,
and wage rates of all employees employed as of
July 20, 1979, as well as a listing of all employees
laid off or terminated since October 27, 1978, and
the reasons therefore.
(f) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
the Board or its agents, for examination and copy-
ing, all payroll records, social security payment re-
cords, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this
Order.
(g) Post at Respondent's place of business in
Glendale, Arizona, copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix."9 Copies of said notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 28, after being duly signed by Respondent's
representative, shall be posted by Respondent im-
mediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in con-
spicuous 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 covered by
any other material.
(h) Notify the Regional Director for Region 28,
in writing, within 20 days from the date of this
Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith.
MEMBER TRUESDALE, dissenting:
For the reasons set forth in my dissenting opin-
ion in the underlying representation proceeding,
Evans Rotork, Inc., 242 NLRB 1317 (1979), I con-
cluded that Respondent's Objection 2, involving an
alleged unlawful waiver of initiation fees by the
Unin, raised substantial and material issues of fact
which should have been resolved at a hearing.
Therefore, in my view, the certification of the
9 In the event hat this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United
States Court of Appeals, the ords in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursu-
ant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an
Order of the National Labor Relations Board."
EVANS ROTORK. INC. 665
Union was improper. Accordingly, I dissent from
my colleagues' finding of any violation herein.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPI OYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and to
meet and bargain collectively concerning rates
of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and con-
ditions of employment with International As-
sociation of Machinists and Aerospace Work-
ers, District Lodge 49, Local 519, AFL-CIO,
as the exlcusive bargaining representative of
the employees in the unit set forth below.
WE wi.l. NOT unilaterally assign job classifi-
cations to unit employees.
WE WILL NOT discontinue our prior prac-
tices of granting wage increases to unit em-
ployees on the anniversary date of said em-
ployees' employment.
WE WILl. NOT meet individually with unit
employees and evaluate each for purposes of
implementation of wage increases.
WE WIL l. NOT unilaterally grant wage in-
creases to unit employees, although this does
not mean we are now required to lower any
wages or salary schedules presently established
for unit employees.
WE WILL. NOT bargain directly and on an in-
dividual basis with unit employees by an-
nouncing a proposed layoff of employees.
WE WILL NOT bargain directly and on an in-
dividual basis with unit employees by soliciting
proposed contractual terms and negotiating
with employees concerning a wage increase.
WE WILL NOT advise our employees that we
will not bargain with the above-named Union
so long as nonemployees act as the Union's
designated agents for such purposes.
WE WILl. NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employ-
ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILl., upon request, bargain with the
above-named Union, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all employees in the bargaining
unit described below, with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment, and, if an understanding
is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement. The bargaining unit is:
All production, maintenance, shipping and
receiving employees, clerical employees.
salesmen truckdrivers, and draftsmen em-
ployed by us at our 5530 North 51st
Avenue, Glendale, Arizona, location; ex-
cluding confidential secretary, watchmen,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WI WII.L reinstate our practice of granting
wage increases to unit employees on the anni-
versary date of their employment with us.
WE WILL rescind the unilateral job classifi-
cation assignments made to unit employees in
January 1979, and WE WILL reinstate unit em-
ployees to the job classification assignments
that they held prior to the date that we unilat-
erally assigned job classifications to them.
WE WIll., upon request, furnish the Union
with the names, addresses, dates of hire, job
classifications, and wage rates of all employees
employed as of July 20, 1979, as well as a list-
ing of all employees laid off or terminated
since October 27, 1978, and the reasons there-
for.
WE WIll. make whole any of our unit em-
ployees who may have suffered monetary
losses by reason of our unilateral changes in
terms and conditions of employment, with in-
terest.
EVANS ROTORK, INC.
Union was improper. Accordingly, I dissent from
EVANS ROTORK. INC. t