General Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsSep 20, 1988

290 N.L.R.B. 1138 (N.L.R.B. 1988)

1138 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD General Electric Company and Anthony Kandow, Gilbert Lapoint, Robert Ash , and Local 947, United Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE). Cases 7-CA-25874 and 7- CA-26535 September 20, 1988 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFF On March 9 , 1988, Administrative Law Judge Elbert D Gadsden issued the attached decision The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed an answering brief I The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed 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 briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,2 and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modified 3 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Re- spondent , General Electric Company , Riverview, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors , and as- signs , shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified Insert the following as paragraph 1(d) "(d) In any like or related manner interfering with , restraining , or coercing employees in the ex- ercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act " 1 The General Counsel also filed a motion to strike the Respondent's supporting brief 2 We agree with the General Counsel that the backpay and reinstate- ment issues raised by the Respondent 's exceptions are matters that are ap- propriate for determination at the compliance stage of this proceeding See Dean General Contractors, 285 NLRB 573 (1987) We thus find it un- necessary to pass on the General Counsel 's motion to strike the Respond- ent's supporting brief 0 We shall modify the recommended Order to include the narrow cease-and-desist language customarily used by the Board and to conform to the notice Joseph P Canfield, Esq, for the General Counsel John Corbett O'Meara, Esq and Kathleen M Hates, Esq, for the Respondent DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ELBERT D GADSDEN , Administrative Law Judge On charges of unfair labor practices filed on 30 May 1986 290 NLRB No 149 and 7 January 1987, respectively , by Anthony Kandow, Gilbert LaPoint, and Robert Ash, and Local 947, United Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE), respectively, complaints were issued by the Re- gional Director for Region 7 on behalf of the General Counsel on 18 July 1986 and 12 February 1987, respec- tively Both cases were consolidated for hearing on 18 February 1987 The consolidated complaint alleged in substance that Respondent interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act , by laying off em- ployees Anthony Kandow , Gilbert LaPoint , and Robert Ash on 16 December 1985 and thereafter failing and re- fusing to recall them because of their sympathies for the Union , their roles as union officials , and their participa- tion in a strike , in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, that by this conduct, the Respondent also discriminated against the four-named employees for the same reasons, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, and that the Respondent further interfered with , restrained , and co- erced employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, and failed and refused to bargain with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees, by failing to furnish relevant information requested by the Union, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act The hearing in the above matter was held before me in Detroit, Michigan , on 18, 19 , and 20 May 1987 Briefs have been received from counsel for the General Coun- sel and counsel for the Respondent, respectively, which have been carefully considered On the entire record in this case , including my obser- vation of the demeanor of the witnesses and my consid- eration of the briefs, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION At all times material, the Respondent has maintained an office and place of business at One River Road in the City of Schenectady, New York (Respondent 's place of business) The Respondent also maintains other plants in various States including the State of Michigan Respond- ent's Riverview facility, located in Michigan , has been at all times engaged in the repair of industrial and commer- cial apparatus, and its Michigan facility is the only facili- ty involved in this proceeding During the year ending 31 December 1985, a repre- sentative period , the Respondent at all times material had gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and purchased and caused to be transported and delivered at its Riverview facility, goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 that were transported and delivered to it directly from points located outside the State of Michigan The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that Respondent is now , and has been at all times materi- al, an employer engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act GENERAL ELECTRIC CO 1139 II THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that Local 947, United Electircal, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) (the Union) is, and has been at all times material , a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES Respondent operates two business facilities , one locat- ed at Riverview , Michigan , and the other at Dearborn, Michigan The Riverview facility is essentially a repair business operation It prepares large electrical equipment such as generators , transformers , motors, and switch- gears The duration of such repair work varies from sev- eral hours to months , and the timing of intake orders for the work depends on equipment of business or other in- stitutions breaking down or falling into ill repair Conse- quently , some of the work is prescheduled and other work is occasioned by an emergency , sometimes necessi- tating the repairman to go to the jobsite of the equip- ment The Riverview facility consists of the following four departments (1) The Inspection and Test Department- where equipment such as generators , motors, and power relays (switchgears , switches, and breakers) are tested The facility is a diagnostic and repair center (2) The Winding Department-where motors are rewound (3) The Machine Department-where machine parts needed and repair work are made or modified , such as turning shafts (4) The Repair Department-cleans the repaired equipment and performs assemly work The work performed at the Dearborn facility involves the repair off small instrumentations and requires different skills and equipment For many years , Respondent's employees at both fa- cilities (Riverview and Dearborn) were represented by Local 947, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Work- ers of America (UE) In November 1985, Respondent was performing an outside job to which it had assigned some of its employees from its Riverview facility Re- spondent made a change in the method of pay to these employees which, the employees and the Union contend, was contrary to past practice and the Local contract in effect between the parties, which resulted in substantial monetary losses to the employees assigned to the outside job Consequently, one of the employees assigned to the outside job filed a second-step grievance on the matter, which was denied The grievance was advanced to the third step , where it was also denied The Local Union called a strike and pursuant to the contract , filed a 24-hour notice on management of the Riverview facility , for both the Riverview and Dearborn facilities and the employees assigned to the outside job, and the Riverview facility went on strike on Friday, 6 December 1985 The Dearborn facility went on strike Monday, 9 December 1985 On 15 December, the Union notified Respondent that the employees had voted to return to work About 1 hour later, two of the employ- ees who participated in the strike were called by their foreman and informed that they and another employee were laid off for lack of work On 30 May 1986, the three laid-off employees filed a charge with the Board al- leging that they were discriminated against by Respond- ent for their leadership roles in the strike, and that by Respondent commencing to assign more overtime work, and staffing jobs with employees who were outside the job classification and/or with less seniority than the laid- off employees Respondent admitted that at all times material the fol- lowing named persons, and their positions, have been and are now supervisors of Respondent , within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, and are its agents Ed McGivern, manager until approximately 31 Decem- ber 1985, Carl Spevetz, manager since approximately 1 January 1986, and George Hudguins , foreman i Respondent admitted that the appropriate unit for col- lective bargaining is as follows All full-time and regular part-time production and maintenance employees employed by Respond- ent at its Riverview, Michigan, facility, but exclud- ing office clerical employees, guards and supervi- sors as defined in the Act, constitutes a unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act A The Financial Status of Respondent's Business and its Management-Employee Relations In or about 1975 there were approximately 160 em- ployees employed at Respondent 's Riverview facility However, commensurate with declining business in the Detroit vicinity , Respondent was forced to reduce its work force to a unit of 25 employees, where it was stab- lized since approximately 1979 The uncontroverted and credited evidence of record established that Anthony Kandow was employed by Re- spondent from 1963 until 16 December 1985, when he was laid off indefinitely Although employed by Re- spondent, Kandow worked in the inspection, test, and switch and gear departments , which work experiences involved inspecting and testing voltage switchgears and maintaining switches at customer locations Require- ments for the performance of these jobs, Kandow said, were some mechanical skills and common sense He worked under the supervision of Foreman George Hud- gins, who reported to Plant Manager Carl Spevetz During his working tenure with Respondent, Kandow has served as recording secretary, secretary, steward, chief steward, and since 1984 , president of the Union While serving as president , Kando% filed twice as many grievances as any previous union administration Other officers of the Union during his late presidency were Gil LaPoint, vice president, Ray Young, financial secretary, George Vesich, chief steward , Leo Kandow (brother of Anthony Kandow), steward , and Bynum Callahan The union trustees were Agnes DeMuth, Roger Ash, and Dave Carter On approximately 25 November 1985 , Kandow was assigned to a job at the Pontiac Motor Truck and Bus ' The facts set forth above are not disputed and are not in conflict in the record 1140 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Company, performing preventive maintenance work This work involved testing, cleaning and repairing switches and gear equipment With him on this assign- ment were fellow workers Jun Chnstini , Dave Poleznski, and Robert Johnson At the time of the work assignment to the Pontiac job, Foreman McGivern told Kandow and his fellow work- ers that they would be paid "in heu of the regular prac- tice of overtime for out -of-town work," a difference of about $300 less in pay The Union expressed its objection to the announced pay method , and Kandow filed a second-step grievance, but it was denied by management The Union processed the grievance to the third step on an emergency basis where it was also denied Kandow explained that the Union 's national agreement contains an arbitration clause, but it applies only to grievances for discipline and not for hours pay procedure The Union's executive board, which included Gil La- Point, met and decided to give a 24-hour notice to the Company of its anticipated strike Two notices were de- livered to Foreman Ed McGivem , plant manager, on that same date , 5 December Plant Manager McGivern said only one notice was necessary, and he accepted one notice and destroyed the other notice for the Dearborn facility On 6 December 1985 the Union 's executive committee approached Plant Manager McGivern and Foreman Hudgins and informed them the strike would begin im- mediately Thereafter Kandow and other members of the union committee went to the Riverview employees and told them, "Let's walk out," and they walked out and es- tablished a picket line in front of the plant Kandow went to the Dearborn facility and asked the employees there to walk out, but he was informed they could not walk out legally because the Dearborn management had not been given the 24 -hour notice After consulting with the International , Kandow delivered a letter to Joseph Daily, manager of the Dearborn facility, advising of the strike On Monday morning , 9 December 1985 , Kandow went to the Dearborn employees and called them out on strike The employees heeded his call Picketing Kandow and LaPomt picketed Riverview on Saturday and Sunday , 7 and 8 December , respectively On Monday, 9 December, most of the Riverview employees picketed in the morning and left , while Kandow, Roger Ash, Leo Kandow , and George Vesich continued picket- ing the remainder of the day , except when Anthony Kandow and LaPomt went to the Dearborn plant to see about the strikers there Both Anthony Kandow and Gil LaPoint testified that as they picketed they saw manage- ment (Hudgins and Spevetz) looking out of the windows and doors at them in front of the shop and also on the parking lot Management also observed them (LaPomt, Tony Kandow, Leo Kandow, Roger Ash, and sometimes George Vesich) picketing as they (member of manage- ment) went out of the plant and returned from lunch About 4 p in on 15 December 1985 , the Union sent management a telegram advising that the strike had been terminated A few minutes later , Foreman Hudgins called Anthony Kandow on the telephone and informed him he was laid off Kandow asked Hudgins was he the only one laid off and Hudgins said , "Gil LaPoint, and he was going to call LaPoint and Roger Ash to notify them that they were laid off " LaPoint verified that he had been called by Foreman Hudgins on 15 December at 7 or 8 p in and informed that he was going to be laid off and should not report for work the next day He said he did not receive a written notification , which was the usual practice However , the record contains a written notice (G C Exh 20) dated 16 December 1985 to Gil LaPoint indicating indefinite layoff It was signed by George Hudgins The Union filed a grievance for the Company 's failure to give the employees 5 days notice or 5 days pay before they were laid off on 15 December 1985 Approximately seven other grievances were subsequently filed regarding work being performed by persons out of classification or lacking in seniority During a grievance meeting in early January 1986, Foreman Hudgins told Anthony Kandow and the union representative it was all right to lay off the employees without notice at the end of the strike because a notice was not necessary under those circumstances On the second grievance the Union (Kandow) com- plained to management about junior employees working in the switchgear department, and management said it "had the right people " Kandow said the union contract provides that layoffs will be by seniority , except manage- ment is allowed to take into consideration the ability of the worker, and the Company's past practice was layoff by seniority Before the strike the Union grieved the fact that em- ployee Melton was performing machinist Ash's welding job McGivern said the Company felt it had to keep Roger Ash because of his welding experience The Union then requested management to keep Ash as a welder, but the Company said no , because the Company might need him as a welder and it would have him there The Union grieved the fact that Gil LaPoint had not been recalled and management said it "kept the right people " After the strike on 16 December 1985, Union Steward Kandow stated that there was 25 to 50 percent overtime work performed at the Riverview facility Leo Kandow, brother of Anthony Kandow, was a union steward in 1983 and 1984 After the strike Leo Kandow returned to work He corroborated the unrebutted testimony of An- thony Kandow that after the strike there was a lot of work at Riverview , which lasted until about March 1986 Some of the work involved work to correct cita- tions issued by OSHA against Respondent in January or February 1986, and the employees with overtime per- formed the work that made the corrections Leo Kandow continued working and filing grievances until he was laid off 5 August 1986 Gil LaPoint was employed by the Respondent for 30 years until he was laid off on 15 December 1985 He was classified repair "A " Previously he worked in receiving and shipping as repair "B" 4 years, inspection and test "B" 1-1/2 years , transformer "B," transformer repair "A" for 10 years, and repair "A" from then on He worked in every department except machinery Before GENERAL ELECTRIC CO the strike, Gil LaPoint , "A" repairman, worked on the Cadillac motor job, which required an "A" classified re- pairman After the strike LaPoint was replaced on that job by Charlie Poumb, a "B" repairman The workers returned to work on Monday (16 Decem- ber 1985) Layoff notices were given to (1) Leo Kandow , (2) George Vesich, (3) Ray Young, (4) Charles Plumb, and (5) Carl Wessman (see G C Exh 10) Antho- ny Kandow told Manager Spevetz he thought the layoff notices were a punitive action against the employees for participating in the union strike Kandow also reminded Spevetz that layoff employees were not given a 5-day notice as required by the contract between the parties Spevetz did not respond After effectuation of the layoff, there were no union officials on the job at the Riverview plant On the next day, Tuesday ( 17 December 1985), Re- spondent issued a notice of temporary layoff to the em- ployees laid off on Monday, 16 December, directing them to return to work the following Tuesday, 25 De- cember The Union filed a grievance with the Company and charges with the Board against Respondent , charg- ing discrimination against employees for engaging in union activity (strike) Respondent offered to pay all of the laid-off employees for loss of work, if the Union would withdraw the charges , because Respondent ac- knowledged it made an error in their layoff notifications The same union executive board made a decision to strike 10 January 1986 under a continuing strike vote by the membership All employees walked out at the end of the work shift, and the picket line consisted of Anthony Kandow, Gil LaPomt, and Leo Kandow The strike lasted only for the weekend-that Saturday and Sunday When the strikers returned Monday and entered the Riv- erview plant, Manager Carl Spevetz and Foreman Hud- gins were by the timeclock stopping certain people from punching in and informing them that they were laid off In late January or February 1986, McCall, an inspec- tion and test employee, was killed in the plant Respond- ent called Dave Polezynski to replace him, and the Union grieved the replacement because Polezynski was low in seniority and other more senior persons should have been called , such as himself, Tom Umphenour, and Travis Wooten Analysis and Conclusions The ultimate issues presented for determination are (1) whether Respondent 's layoff and subsequent refusal to recall Anthony Kandow, Gilbert LaPoint, and Roger Ash violated Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, and (2) whether Respondent failed and refused to furnish the Union with information relevant and necessary to the Union 's func- tion as exclusive bargaining representative of Respond- ent's employees The subordinate issues are (1) whether the Charging party employees have established a prima facie case that protected union activity by them was the determining factor in Respondent 's layoff of them, and (2) if the evidence established a prima facie case that the union activities of the Charging Parties was a determin- ing factor in their layoff, has Respondent demonstrated that the Charging Parties would have been laid off re- 1141 gardless of their union activities because of a legitimate business reason As to whether the Charging Parties have established a prima facie case that their protected strike activity was a determining factor in Respondent 's layoff of them on 16 December, the record shows that the bargaining relation- ship between the parties has existed since 1939, that there have been many disputes between the parties regarding the Respondent 's interpretation and application of the layoff provision in the national agreement, that many an- tiunion statements uttered during the period 1982-1985 have been attributed to management personnel and that Respondent knew Anthony Kandow and Gilbert La- Point were very active and rather zealous union officers who filed or processed many grievances, and participat- ed in prior strikes including the December one against Respondent In support of their allegations that Respondent mani- fested union animus toward its employees, Anthony Kandow testified that about 1982-1983, Foreman Ed Hastings told him that Plant Manager Brown complained that Anthony Kandow gets in his way because Kandow tries to run the business , then in or about 1982 Foreman Hendricks told Kandow and LaPomt that management was out to get them because of their union activities, and that management had a hit list and that the names of An- thony Kandow, LaPoint, and Leo Kandow were on it Gilbert LaPoint testified that Foreman Hendricks told him that he (Hendricks) was instructed by management to watch everything Kandow and LaPoint do, to try to document it when they come in late, to catch them in the act of doing something for which they could be dis- ciplined , to put them under surveillance when they worked outside, and that Hendricks told him (LaPoint) that Labor Relations Representative Hooey generally re- ferred to them (Kandow and LaPomt) in an obscene manner whenever union activities were discussed Hooey appeared and testified in this proceeding , but she did not deny the conduct attributed to her Kandow further testified that in about 1983-1984, former Plant Manager Crane told him he was going to get hun (Kandow), and when Kandow left his employ- ment, Crane said he wanted him to know it was he (Crane) who got him , and that in about March 1984, Foreman Don Barnoff went around the shop urging em- ployees not to vote for him (Kandow) for union presi- dent, telling them if Kandow won the election , the plant would close LaPoint further testified that in or about 1984, Foreman Hudgins told him that he (LaPoint) was the most dangerous man in the shop because of his union activities, and that some scars had not healed from a prior union campaign when both Hudgins and Kandow were running for president in the bargaining unit, that after LaPoint filed a charge with the Board in 1985, be- cause his rating had been reduced to "B" in violation of the Act, Foreman Hudgins told LaPoint he (LaPoint) was in trouble (inferentially) with management for filing the charge Also, during a grievance meeting in June 1986 regard- ing the recall of Anthony Kandow, LaPoint said Fore- man Hudgins told him Anthony Kandow was not being 1142 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD recalled because he had some scars that had not healed from the time when he (Hudgins) was a bargaining unit employee, that he (Hudgins) had bitter disputes with Kandow and other employees, and that he has deep ani- mosity for Kandow, whom he disliked and thought was a bad example for a union officer It is especially noted that neither former Company Foreman Hastings, Hendricks, Barnoff, nor Crane ap- peared and testified in this proceeding Nevertheless, while I credit the somewhat negative statements about the Union or union activities attributed to Hastings, Hen- dricks, and Hooey , I do not attribute much weight to their statements because I find them too remote in time to have any significant bearing on the dispute between the parties in December 1985 Neither Hastings nor Hen- dricks was in Respondent's employ in December 1985 Also, I find some of the statements rather ambiguous and not sufficiently definitive to characterize as interfering with, restraining , or having a coercive effect on the pro- tected union activity of the employees I credit the testimony of the undisputed statements at- tributed to former Plant Manager Crane and Foreman Barnoff by Kandow , not only because I was persuaded by his demeanor that he was testifying truthfully, but also because the statements were made more proximate in time to the strike in December 1985, were relatively consistent with antiunion statements attributed to man- agement by other witneses, and therefore bore more rel- evance to the reasons Respondent laid off the Charging Parties I credit the 1984 and 1985 statements attributed to Foreman Hudgins by LaPoint because I was persuad- ed by his demeanor that he was testifying truthfully, be- cause Foreman Hudgins did not testify and no explana- tion was made for his nonappearance , and because the statements attributed to him were uttered more recently, and were therefore more relevant to Respondent's De- cember 1985 layoff and refusal to recall the Charging Party employees I therefore find on the foregoing credited testimony that former Manager Crane's statement that he was going to get Kandow for his diligent union activities was a threat to fire Kandow and consequently evidenced an antiunion attitude Similarly , Foreman Barnoff's conduct in urging employees to vote against Kandow for presi- dent, was conduct manifesting an antiunion attitude Bar- noff s telling employees that if Kandow won the election the plant would close was threatening conduct also manifesting union animus Likewise, Foreman Hudgins' telling LaPoint he was the most dangerous man in the shop because of his union activities , and telling him he was in a lot of trouble with management because he filed a charge with the Board, constituted union animus All of these statements by management personnel (Crane, Barnoff, and Hudgins) were made either in 1984 or 1985 , and were not too remote in time to have had significant relevance to Re- spondent 's motive in laying off the Charging Parties in December 1985, thereafter refusing to call them More- over, I further find that the antiunion statements by man- agement (Crane, Barnoff, and Hudgins) are consistent with the evidence of the abrupt manner in which the Charging Parties were laid off at the end of the strike and not recalled by Respondent, infra Consequently, when the union activism of Anthony Kandow and Gilbert LaPoint is considered along with the union animus manifested by Respondent 's foremen (Crane, Barnoff, and Hudgins), the precipitous nature of the layoff (only a few hours after the Union notified the Respondent the strike had ended and the employees would return to work the next day), the fact that the lay- offs were so precipitous that Respondent neglected to comply with the National Agreement 's 5-day or 1 week's notice of layoff, and the reluctance and refusal of Re- spondent to recall the leading strike participants (Kandow , LaPoint, and Ash) to work, infra, it becomes abundantly clear that the Charging Parties have estab- lished a prima facie case that their union activities, in- cluding their participation in the December 1985 strike, were a determining factor in Respondent 's reason for laying them off on 16 December I therefore conclude and find that the Charging Parties have established a prima facie case that their union ac- tivities were a determining factor for their layoff by the Respondent Respondent contends that Charging Parties would have been laid off even if they were not engaged in union activities In addressing the question whether the Charging Par- ties would have been laid off even if they were not en- gaged in union activities (including the December strike), the record shows that the parties had a long history of grievance disputes over Respondent laying off and re- calling employees according to classification and seniori- ty At the trial, management contended that in December 1985 it reviewed its manpower needs for the foreseeable future and decided it needed one less worker in each of three classifications (repair, inspection and test, and ma- chinist) Former Plant Manager McGivern testified that before December 1985, he had been pressured by Respondent to lay off employees , but he was reluctant to do so because of the approaching Christmas holidays, the usual yearend customer demands, the custom of senior employees taking unused paid leave during the holiday season, and the usual need for fill-in employees for employees on leave However, McGivern said he learned that the shop was going to lose two jobs (two KWW generators for Rouge Steel and also repair of 600 hp motors for Wittar Steel Company), which were to arrive 18 and 22 Decem- ber 1985, respectively McGivern said he estimated the Rouge Steel job would take 72 hours, using two to four employees in welding and repair or winding work It was difficult to estimate the time the Wittar job order would take until the motors were opened , but replacing bearings would be done in the repair department He said when he learned the strike was over at 5 p in on 15 December 1985, he met with Manager Spevetz and Foreman Hudgins to discuss the layoffs Foreman Hud- gins recommended laying off Anthony Kandow , Gilbert LaPoint, and Roger Ash GENERAL ELECTRIC CO McGivern further stated that the Company decided to send the Rouge Steel job to its Cleveland, Ohio facility because it feared the employees might go back on strike He admitted on cross-examination , however, that the em- ployees had never struck near the Christmas holidays be- cause they would lose two paid holidays Nor had they ever returned to a strike immediately after a strike in the past Thus, it was unlikely that they would have done so on this occasion Before the December 1985 strike, Respondent had always assured the Union that employees would be re- callea from layoff whenever there was 40 hours or more work to be performed However, several witnesses testi- fied without dispute that after strikes in the past, there was generally an excess of work occasioned by the strike, that generally there was work in December occa- sioned by a number of senior employees taking unused paid leave during the Christmas season , that December 1985 was not different in this regard than prior Decem- ber, that shop employees worked overtime until March 1986, and a slow period did not occur until April 1986, and that work picked up again in May 1986 when over- time resumed Some of the latter overtime work is sub- stantiated by the Respondent's overtime records (G C Exh 7), revealing 188 hours of overtime work per- formed the last week in 1985 In January 1986 an employee was killed in the shop, which highlighted some deficiencies in safety standards In order to bring the shop in compliance with higher safety standards , Respondent had 360 hours of overture general plant maintenance work performed in March 1986 Moreover, General Counsel's Exhibit 22 (a) shows that 150 hours of work out of classification was per- formed during the first half of May 1986 Also, in No- vember to December 1986, Respondent had 300 hours of overtime general plant work performed in preparation for closing down the plant 31 December 1986 Much of such work was performed by employees junior to An- thony Kandow, Gilbert LaPoint, and Roger Ash After their layoff in December 1985, Respondent transferred employees Dardmi and Breathour from its Dearborn fa- cility to the Riverview shop Both of these employees had performed different work at the Dearborn facility Nonetheless, Respondent's records (G C Exh 29(c)) show that on 17 February 1986, Breathour 's rating was changed from master inspection repair "A" to inspection and test "A " Respondent's records do not show when Dardini was given the rating inspection test "A " Au- thorization for the transfer of Breathour and Dardini to the Riverview shop is signed 14 February 1986, but the upper right-hand corner of the documents (G C Exhs 29(a) and 31(a)) indicate they were prepared 16 Decem- ber 1985 , and it may be reasonably inferred that the latter date (16 December 1985) represents at least the date Respondent decided to transfer both employees from Dearborn to Riverview 2 2 I credit the witnesses testifying on behalf of the Charging Parties that sufficient work was available after the December strike to recall stoke employees , but that such work was performed by shop employees on overtime during December 1985-March, or May and late 1986 1 credit the testimony of these witnesses not only because I was persuaded by their demeanor that they were telling the truth, but also because their 1143 I therefore conclude and find on the foregoing cred- ited evidence that Respondent had sufficient work avail- able, which could have been performed by recalling the Charging Party employees who participated in the De- cember strike, but that Respondent elected to have such work performed by shop employees on overtime, and by transferring two employees from its Dearborn facility and accommodating their work skill classification to the work to be performed at Riverview during January-May 1986, as well as November and December 1986 December Layoffs Kandow Former Foreman McGivern testified that Kandow was elected for layoff because the Pontiac job where he was working was cut to two employees, both of who had to be safety certified Kandow did not hold a safety certifi- cate so he could not be returned to the Pontiac job In- stead, he said two employees who were safety certified were assigned to the job because they had to work on energized equipment Notwithstanding, on cross-exami- nation, the undisputed evidence established that the safety certification work required less than 1 hour of work a day and only one person could perform it at a time McGivern also acknowledged that in the past, George Gentiliuni, who is not safety certified, has worked on energized equipment He said Kandow was also selected for layoff among test and repair employees because although two employees were his junior, Kandow was only a test "B" while the others were clas- sification "A" McGivern acknowledged on cross-examination that the Pontiac job on which Anthony Kandow and Gilbert LaPoint worked before the strike, commenced on 19 No- vember 1985 and was not completed until 18 February 1986, which shows that the work was available during the period of time that the Charging Parties were laid off LaPomt Former Foreman McGivern said Gilbert LaPomt was laid off because the shop retained four repair employees, three in class "A" and one in class "B," but all were senior to LaPoint LaPoint was assembling motors when the strike ensued and according to LaPoint , there was at least 2 weeks' work left when they went on strike La- Point testified without dispute that before the strike he worked with Frank Gierack at the Cadillac Motor Com- pany on an annual job that usually lasted 4 or 5 months He was on this job a week before the strike when it was held up pending approval of a matter by the customer Gierack and employee Plumb were assigned to that job after the strike , even though Plumb has only a "B" rating In the past , Respondent has argued to keep junior version is substantiated by Respondent's work records, and partially cor- roborated and at least not disputed , by the testimony of Respondent's manager, McGivern, that overtime work was performed by shop employ- ees during the above-stated months 1144 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD "A" employees and layoff "B" employees because of their ability Ash McGivern also testified that machinist Roger Ash was selected for layoff although there were two machinists with less seniority, because Ash was a skilled welder and not a general purpose machinist Welding was not needed but machinist were needed He said Ash was not capable of doing the machine work and on prior occa- sions the Union had demanded that management lay him off because he was performing neither welding nor ma- chining However, other testimony in the record indi- cates that for several years prior to 6 December 1985 Respondent would lay off other employees in lieu of Ash because it said it needed Ash for his welding expertise and could not afford to lose him to other welding em- ployment Respondent did not show any reduction in welding work in or after December 1985 Conclusions In considering whether Anthony Kandow , Gilbert La- Point, and Roger Ash would have been laid off 16 De- cember 1985 absent any union activity (strike) by them, I am persuaded by the overwhelming credited and essen- tially uncontroverted circumstantial evidence of record that Respondent would not have laid them off 16 De- cember 1985 Although Respondent has had a decline in business in the late 1970s and very early 1980s its busi- ness and employee complement stabilized with about 25 employees over the next 4 years prior to 16 December 1985 Respondent's testimony at the trial that it recently reviewed its work force in November or December 1985 and decided it needed one less employee in three differ- ent departments is supported only by the uncorroborated and self-serving testimony of Respondent 's foreman, McGivern However, even this contention would be credible if it were not for so many other contradictory circumstances , such as Respondent 's need for fill-in em- ployees during the approaching Christmas season, the transfer of the scheduled Rouge steel job to Respond- ent's Cleveland, Ohio facility , and Respondent's transfer of Breathour and Dardini from its Dearborn facility to the Riverview shop , when both employees were classi- fied differently and had actually performed different work in Dearborn I consider the timing of all these events occurring in mid-December 1985 too much to at- tribute to coincidence Additionally, when all of the above factors are consid- ered along with the fact that Respondent had 300 and some hours of overtime work in late December and con- siderable overtime hours of work in January-March 1986, and also November-December 1986, and it did not recall either of the laid-off Charging Parties (Kandow, LaPoint, or Ash), I find that it may be reasonably in- ferred from the tuning of these circumstances and the timing of the layoffs and Respondent's refusal to recall them, that Respondent would not have laid off Kandow, LaPoint, or Ash on 16 December 1985 if they were not engaged in the union strike 6- 16 December 1985 This conclusion is further supported by the evidence that Re- spondent failed and refused to recall any of the three em- ployees to work when it had general maintenance work that they could have performed during December 1985- May 1986 Consequently , I do not credit Respondent's business justification defense for not recalling Kandow, LaPoint, and Ash The above conclusion is especially true when it is further considered that it was Formeman Hudgins, who selected Kandow , LaPoint, and Ash for layoff when he had previously manifested union ammus toward Kandow and LaPoint Hudgins knew Ash was one of the strikers and also a union official , and he saw Ash on the picket line Specifically , in 1984 Foreman Hudgins told LaPoint that Anthony Kandow was the most dangerous man in the plant because of his union ac- tivities, that when LaPoint filed a charge with the Board in 1985 , Hudgins told Kandow and LaPoint that LaPoint was in a lot of trouble with management , and that during a grievance meeting in February 1986 Hudgins told Leo Kandow he would love to recall Anthony Kandow and LaPomt to work but people on the floor were telling him Anthony and LaPoint were spending too much time on union business Respondent 's posthearing brief to the counsel for Re- spondent alludes to the long bargaining history of the parties since 1939 and the many disputes they had over the interpretation and application of the layoff and recall policy (art XII) of the national agreement Counsel then argues that Respondent would not have waited until this late date to discriminate against the striking Charging Parties However, as logical as this argument appears, when I review all the evidence of record , considering the decline in business of the Riverview shop and the nu- merous grievances filed by the Union, I am reminded that there is a first time for everything The circum- stances being what they were before 6 December 1985, it is not difficult to believe that Respondent was not aggra- vated by the numerous grievances and strike union activ- ity of the Charging Parties to the extent that it tried to end the persistent and aggravating activity of the Union by laying off its most zealous leaders (the Charging Par- ties) This conclusion is further supported when it is noted, and I find , that Respondent neglected to recall either of the Charging Party employees to perform available work, but instead transferred work to Cleveland, Ohio, transferred two employees from its Dearborn facility to the Riverview shop, and systematically worked other employees out of classification and order of seniority, as well as Respondent 's failure and refusal to furnish the Union with necessary and relevant information requested by the Union, infra Although the evidence indicates that there was person- al dissension between Kandow and Hudgins emanating from union office rivalry when Hudgins was a member of the bargaining unit, I also sense union animus by Hud- gins aside from his personal relationship with Kandow This is especially true when Hudgins vented some of his animus toward LaPoint, with whom the record does not show Hudgins had any personal conflict Under these circumstances I find that Hudgins' union animus would probably have manifested itself independent of the per- GENERAL ELECTRIC CO 1145 sonal conflict between himself and Kandow In any event, Hudgins was no longer a member of the bargain- ing unit, but a member of management at the time he made his antiunion remarks to Anthony Kandow and Gilbert LaPoint, and also at the time of his 1986 antiun- ion explanation to Leo Kandow for not recalling Antho- ny Kandow and LaPoint (assertedly because unnamed employees in the shop told him Anthony spent too much time on union business) Respondent also argues that in Kandow 's affidavit to the Board in June 1986, he said he did not have any con- crete evidence that he was laid off by the Respondent for his union activities , but during the trial he suggested a statement by Hudgins made during a second-step griev- ance constituted such evidence Although Kandow did make the above statements , I do not conceive them as contradictory or untruthful, as the Respondent urges, be- cause Kandow may not have remembered Hudgins' an- tiunion statement at the time he submitted his affidavit It is also possible he was not asked whether he had such evidence, or his memory might have been thereafter jogged by additional questions of the General Counsel during the investigation in preparation of the case Re- spondent 's state of mind at the time it laid off the Charg- ing Parties is determined on the record evidence as a whole, and not on isolated incidents on which inferences and speculation may be made The Respondent's conduct subsequent to the layoffs (relative to recall) and refusal to furnish information, infra, is very much a part of the total evidence in determining its state of mind or attitude at the time of the layoffs and failure to recall the laid-off Charging Parties Bartels & Shores Chemical Co, 274 NLRB 1034, 1040 (1985) Finally since the evidence has clearly demonstrated that Respondent had considerable classified , general maintenance, and overtime work during December 1985- May 1986, and also November-December 1986, which Kandow, LaPoint, Ash, and nearly any of its skilled em- ployees could have performed , and some did in fact per- form I find that Respondent failed and refused to recall the Charging Party employees because of their union ac- tivities, including their participation in the December strike, that the December 1985 strike was an unfair labor paractice strike protected under the Act, that the layoff and refusal to recall the Charging Parties in the order of seniority, work classification , and ability to perform would not have occurred if the employees were not en- gaged in union activity (stake), that Respondent has not established any credible business justification for laying off or refusing to recall them in the order of a consistent- ly followed practice of the National Agreement, and that Respondent's layoff and refusal to recall the Charging Parties were based on the same reasons, their grievance union activity and engaging in the December strike, which were discriminatory acts by Respondent in viola- tion of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act NLRB v Transporta- tion Management Corp, 462 US 393 (1983), NLRB v Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083, 1091 (1980), enfd 662 F 2d 899 (1st Cir 1981) B The Union's Request for Information The Union had filed many grievances about employees either with less seniority and/or working out of their classification in March 1986, because Respondent was not recalling employees on layoff In early 1986, employ- ees Breathour and Dardini were transferred from the Dearborn to the Riverview facility Their prior classifi- cations were meter instruments "A," and they were given an "A" rating and assigned work in the inspection and gear department at Riverview , although the work they performed at Dearborn was different and unrelated to the work at Riverview Prior to their transfers there had not been any such interchange of employees The Union protested the transfers in view of the laid-off em- ployees Respondent said it had the right to transfer them because the meter instrument reading work previ- ously performed by Breathour and Dardim was trans- ferred elsewhere, and both employees had seniority over the laid-off employees The Dearborn plant is still in op- eration with four or five employees Conclusion It has been long held that an employer has a duty under the Act to supply, on request, such information that is probably relevant, in fact relevant, necessary, and useful to a union 's effective and intelligent evaluation in determining whether to process employee grievances NLRB v Acme Industrial Co, 385 U S 438 (1967) In the instant case , the evidence is uncontroverted that Respondent and the Union have had numerous grievance disputes over the years about employees working out of their classification or with less seniority Such was the case in early March 1986 when Respondent transferred two employees from their meter instruments work in Dearborn to its Riverview facility, while employees from the Riverview facility were on layoff Their Dearborn meter instruments "A" ratings were immediately changed to "A" ratings in inspection and test at the Riv- erview shop, and they were assigned inspection and test work In an effort to avoid discriminatory work assignments against employees in their proper classification after the 16 December 1985 strike, or against employees with more seniority, or employees on layoff, the Union in February 1986 verbally requested Respondent to furnish it with a list of all work from the date of the layoff (16 December 1985) Respondent said it "would look into that possibility " The Union periodically repeated its re- quest in subsequent grievance meetings with Respondent until 9 July 1986, when it submitted the following writ- ten request to Respondent The Union requests a list of all work performed by active shop employees since December 16, 1985 to date This list should consist of descriptions of work performed, time spent on work performed, dates of work performed, and names of employees performing said work Straight time hours, and overtime hours to be specified The Union also requests a list of any work per- formed by outside employees, i e other G E shops, 1146 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and any work farmed out to outside vendors, and any work performed in the plant by outside vendors during this period The above list criteria should also be included in this information The Union further requests , the company keep the local informed on a weekly basis, on the above information from date to Plant closing In a letter signed by Carl Spevetz (manager) dated 23 July 1986, Respondent replied as follows This is in reply to your request on July 9, 1987, of certain information 1 Without some further elaboration from you, the Company is unable to determine that all or any of the information requested is relevant to any out- standing issues (i e, grievances which are still in the grievance procedure or issues which are the subject of current or proposed negotiations) If you will identify what items of information you believe are relevant to what the outstanding issues are, the Company will give further consideration to your re- quest 2 Your request asks for lists or other compila- tions of information Such a compilation would in- volve considerable cost and administrative burden to the Company Therefore, if the Company deter- mines that any request for information are relevant to any outstanding issues, the Company may allow the Union the opportunity to review relevant and existing Company records If the Union desires to make copies of such records, the Company may impose a reasonable charge for the use of its copy- ing facilities If you wish to discuss any aspect of this letter, please contact me In a letter dated 5 August 1986 the Union responded to Respondent 's 23 July 1986 letter as follows The information requested on 7/9 /86, is neces- sary to pursue the N L R B charges filed in regards to the strike in 1985 , which concluded on Decem- ber 16, 1985, and the Co 's, subsequent lock out of certain employees, Anthony Kandow, Gilbert La- Pomt, and Roger Ash The Co's, position that said lock out was due to a lack of work , does not coincide with some of the information , the Local has received from other sources during the period Some of the instances have been documented in grievance form The union requests the information, to determine if the Co's, position `That there is not enough full time work available, to justify recalling employees,' is valid We expect the Co to make this information available to the Local in a timely manner The undisputed and credited testimony of record fur- ther established that Respondent's labor relations repre- sentative, Mane Hooey, sat in on grievances for the Re- spondent She told the Union whenever junior employ- ees worked out of their classification , there was always less than 40 hours of work to be done , and Respondent did not recall laid-off employees for such work Howev- er, when the Union presented Respondent with docu- mentary evidence of more that 40 hours worked in one grievance , laid-off employee Gary Besonen was recalled to work Because the dispute between the parties after the De- cember 1985 strike involved availability of work (classi- fied and general maintenance) to recall laid-off employ- ees on the basis of seniority, their classification and abili- ty to perform such work, the Union's February 1986 verbal request for a list of all work performed after 16 December 1985 was clearly relevant and necessary to the Union's obligation to process grievances for evaluation, and to determine whether there was any discrimination in the assignment of classified work to junior employees, or employees out of their work classification Likewise, the Union 's written request for a list of the description of all such work, the time spent in performing it, the date it was performed, the names of the employees performing such work , work performed outside the shop or farmed out to vendors, and the number of straight-time and overtime hours during which the work was performed, is clearly relevant and necessary for the Union's evaluation and determination whether laid-off employees were dis- criminated against regarding recall, or whether employ- ees working were discriminated against in the assignment work in accordance with their classification and order of seniority It is abundantly clear from the above-described nature of the dispute between the parties that the information requested by the Union was not only relevant , necessary, and useful for the Union 's evaluation and determination regarding whether Respondent was discriminating in as- signing available work to junior employees or employees out of classification, rather than recalling the laid-off em- ployees to perform such work Consequently, I find that all of the information requested by the Union was rele- vant, necessary, and useful to the Union in its representa- tive function of the unit employees in investigating and processing grievances NLRB v Acme Industrial Co, supra, Florida Steel Corp, 235 NLRB 941, 942 (1978), enfd 101 LRRM 2671, 2674 (4th Cir 1979), and An- heuser Busch, Inc, 237 NLRB 982, 984-985 (1978) Although Respondent's letter of 23 July 1986 to the Union requested the Union to elaborate on its requests in order for Respondent to determine whether the Union's request was irrelevant to any grievance issues pending, and that compliance with the Union 's request would be a burden on Respondent at considerable costs, I find Re- spondent 's request is without merit The Union's verbal request of February 1986, and especially its more specific written request of 9 July 1986, were both sufficiently ex- plicit for Respondent to understand and recognize its rel- evance to the recall of the laid -off employees After all, Respondent was not a stranger to the layoff dispute, or to the long-standing occurrence of disputes arising out of work assignments out of classifications or without con- flict in employee seniority or ability to perform work But even if there were some merit in Respondent's re- GENERAL ELECTRIC CO 1147 quest for elaboration by the Union on its request, I find that the Union furnished Respondent with additional specificity of its request in its 5 August 1986 reply to Re- spondent, even though, I further find such a reply was cumulative and unnecessary Consequently, I find on the foregoing documentary evidence and reasons that although Respondent untimely furnished the requested information to the Union 1 year and 3 months after its verbal request and 10 months after its written request, that its action was a dilatory and un- reasonable delay by Respondent, consistent with its oral and written responses to the Union (it "would look into that possibility," and its unnecessary request for further clarification) I find that such delay constituted a failure and refusal by Respondent to furnish the requested infor- mation I further find that Respondent's failure and refus- al to furnish the requested information constituted a fail- ure and refusal to bargain in good faith, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act NLRB v Truitt Mfg Co, 351 U S 149, 153-154 (1956) Article XXIX, p 95 (G C Exh 3) of the nationally negotiated agreement between the parties contains the following management rights clause Management Authority The Union and the locals recognize that subject only to the expressed provisions of this Agreement, the supervision , management and control of the Company 's business, operations and plants are ex- clusively the function of the Company Article XII of the agreement , p 44, provides in part as follows Reduction or Increase in Forces 1 (a) In all cases of layoff or transfer due to lack of work, total length of continuous service shall be the major factor determining the employees to be laid off or transferred (exclusively of upgrading) However, ability will be given consideration (b) Similarly, in all cases of rehiring after layoff, such total length of continuous service shall be the major factor determining such rehiring if the em- ployee is able to do the available work in a satisfac- tory manner after a minimum amount of training Counsel for Respondent cites the management rights clause and the reduction or increase in work force provi- sions of the national agreement It is not shown, howev- er, how these provisions apply to the facts in the instant case In my judgement, the management rights clause has not been placed in issue by the evidence, and although I find the reduction in work force provision not entirely precise, I find that it was not uniformly applied in the instant case Although provisions (a) and (b) clearly state that total length of continuous service shall be a major determining factor for recall, it is particularly noted that Charging Party Gilbert LaPoint was in Respondent's employ for 30 years Apparently, the length of continu- ous service provision was not given consideration for recall in his case It is therefore clear from this example, and the selective exclusion of recalling the striking union officers, that Respondent was not indiscriminately recall- ing employees after the December 1985 strike REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it be or- dered to cease and desist therefrom, and that it take cer- tain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act Having found that Respondent laid off and refused to recall employees who participated in protected union ac- tivity, including a strike, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, and that by failing and refusing to timely furnish the Union with necessary and relevant in- formation requested by the Union, Respondent also vio- lated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, the recommend- ed Order will provide that Respondent cease and desist from engaging in such unlawful conduct, that it be or- dered to recognize and on request, bargain in good faith with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit, that it furnish the Union with the information requested by the Union, and that it make whole the three unit em- ployees for any loss of earnings they may have suffered as a result of their discriminatory layoff, and Respond- ent's discriminatory failure and refusal to recall them, within the meaning and in accord with the Board's Deci- sion in F W Woolworth Co, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987),3 except as specifically modified by the wording of such recommended Order Because of the character of the unfair labor practices herein found, the recommended Order will provide that Respondent cease and desist from, in any like or related manner, interfering with, restraining, or coercing em- ployees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Sec- tion 7 of the Act NLRB v Entwistle Mfg Co, 120 F 2d 532, 536 (4th Cir 1941) CONCLUSION OF LAW 1 By the following acts and conduct the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act (a) Discnminatonly laying off employees Anthony Kandow, Gilbert LaPomt, and Roger Ash, and failing and refusing to recall them because they, as union offi- cers, engaged in protected grievance filing union activi- ty, including their participation in a strike (b) By failing and refusing to furnish the Union with necessary and relevant information requested by the Union, Respondent has failed and refused to bargain in good faith with the Union On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed4 3 See generally Isis Plumbing Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962) 4 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations , the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur- POWs 1148 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ORDER The Respondent, General Electric Company, River- view, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Laying off and failing and refusing to recall em- ployees because they engaged in protected union activi- ty, including a strike. (b) Failing and refusing to furnish the Union with nec- essary and relevant information requested by the Union. (c) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Offer to recall Anthony Kandow, Gilbert LaPoint, and Roger Ash for immediate and full reinstatement to their former positions as of 16 December 1985 or, if those positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges. (b) Make whole Anthony Kandow, Gilbert LaPoint, and Roger Ash, from 16 December 1985, for any losses they have suffered as a result of their layoff because of their union activity, including participating in a strike. (c) Offer to bargain , or on request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of the unit employ- ees. (d) Furnish the Union with the information it request- ed. (e) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board or its agents , for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, time- cards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (f) Post at Respondent's Riverview facility, located at 18075 Krause Avenue, Riverview, Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."5 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being signed by the Respondent's author- ized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately on receipt and maintained for 60 consecu- tive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (g) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent 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 violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or- dered us to post and abide by this notice. Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights. To organize To form, join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing To act together for other mutual aid or protec- tion To choose not to engage in any of these protect- ed concerted activities. WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain in good faith with the Union by failing an refusing to supply informa- tion requested by the Union. WE WILL NOT discriminate against our employees in regard to hire or tenure of employment, or term or con- dition of employment to discourage membership in, as- sistance to, or any other activity on behalf of the Union or any other labor organization. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner restrain or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL, upon request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of our em- ployees in the appropriate unit described below: All full-time and regular part-time production and maintenance employees employed by Respondent at its Riverview, Michigan facility; but excluding office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitutes a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9(b) of the Act. WE WILL recall and offer Anthony Kandow, Gilbert LaPoint, and Roger Ash immediate and full reinstate- ment to their former positions as of 16 December 1985 or, if those positions no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions without prejudice to their seniority or other rights previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered by reason of our dis- crinvnation against them, with interest. All our employees are free to become or remain, or refuse to become or remain, members of Local 947, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of Amer- ica (UE), or any other labor organization 5 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation- al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board " GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY