International Credit Service

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 12, 1979

240 N.L.R.B. 715 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

INTERNATIONAL CREDIT SERVICE 715 International Credit Service, a Division of Lucas County Credit Bureau, Inc. and Toledo Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 55, Interna- tional Printing and Graphic Communications Union, AFLCIO. Case 8-CA 11471 February 12, 1979 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING ANt) MFMBI RS PN.Ist.o() AND TRUESDAIF On November 1, 1978, Administrative Law Judge George Norman issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's Decision. 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. The Board has considered the record and the at- tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re- lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, International Credit Ser- vice, a Division of Lucas County Credit Bureau, Inc., Toledo, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall take the action set forth in the said rec- ommended Order. Respondent has excepted to certain credihilits findings made bh the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established polic not to over- rule an Administrative Law Judge's resolutions with respect to credlbillt, unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant eidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Nindurd Drl HWal Produ-r Inr, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 .2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings. DECISION STATEMENF OF THE CASE GEORGE NORMAN. Administrative Law Judge: The hear- ing in this case, held on March 14 and 15, 1978, is based on a charge filed on October 28, 1977,1 and an amended 240 NLRB No. 102 charge filed on December 13, by Toledo Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 55 International Printing and Graphic Communications Union, AFL CIO, herein the Union. A complaint issued December 14 on behalf of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein the Board, by the Regional Director of Region 8, alleging that International C('redit Service, a division of Lu- cas County Credit Bureau, Inc., herein Respondent, has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein the Act. Respondent filed an answer denying the commission of the alleged unfair labor practices. Upon the entire record, from my observation of the wit- nesses, and having considered the post-hearing briefs. I make the following: FINDINs o FA(T THE I SINESS OF RESPONDENr Respondent is an Ohio corporation with its sole location at 4045 Talmadge Road, Toleo, Ohio, where it is engaged in providing a collection service for business entities and individuals. Annually, in the course of its business, Re- spondent receives revenues in excess of $50,000 for perfor- mance of collection services for Sun Oil Company, an en- terprise directly engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act. Respondent admits, and I find, it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II HE LBOR OR(ANIZATION INVOI.VED The Union, Toledo Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union, No. 55 International Printing and Graphic Com- munications Union, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III THE QUESTIONS PRESENTEFD I. Whether or not a collective-bargaining agreement was reached between Respondent and Union. 2. Whether or not Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by not executing said document if in fact it was previously agreed to by the parties. 3. Whether or not Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by implementing wage increases during a critical period in an effort to avert a possible strike not- withstanding the Union and the employees objected to the granting of such a wage increase in lieu of Respondent's execution of the collective bargaining agreement. 4. Whether or not Respondent violated Section 8(a)(I) and (5) of the Act by making a speech to its employees on the eve of the strike in which they were informed, among other things, that they would be replaced if the)' did not report for work on the following workday. 5. Whether or not Respondent violated Section 8(a)(I) .All events herein have occurred during the !ear 1977 unless otherwise indicated INTERNATIONAL~~~ CR DI SE V C .715 716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and (5) of the Act by its delay in providing the Union with certain requested information. 6. Whether or not Respondent's employees engaged in an unfair labor practice strike. IV. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The Facts The Union was certified by the Board on or about March 11, as the exclusive bargaining representative for the purpose of collective bargaining in the following appro- priate unit: All office and clerical employees including mail girls, receptionists, typists, secretaries, keypunch operators, and bookkeepers, but excluding collectors and profes- sionals, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees. Respondent received a notice from the Union that it was ready to commence bargaining and a series of bargaining sessions began on May 4, using the Union's initial proposal as a basis for negotiations. Six face-to-face negotiating ses- sions and several phone conversations took place. At these negotiating sessions, Julius W. Orrin, president of Respon- dent, represented Respondent, and Raymond N. Larson, staff representative for the International Union, was the chief spokesman for the Union. Also present for the Union at most of the negotiating sessions were, Fred Watson, sec- retary-treasurer of the local, Bob Maunz, president of the local, and a number of employee representatives who rotat- ed their appearances. The six face-to-face meetings were held on March 15, May 4 and 24, and June 2, 7, and 23. Commencing with the May 4 meeting, the Union's initial proposal was reviewed and discussed by the parties article by article. Orrin expressed the fact that while he was experienced in negotiating commercial contracts, this was his first experi- ence in negotiating a labor contract, but clearly indicated that he had authority to negotiate the agreement. He told the union representatives that they could present the pro- posals and do the drafting of the initial written reduction of what the parties had discussed, but that he reserved the right to have his attorney review any subsequent reduction in writing that the Union had prepared to determine if the writing correctly set out the terms discussed and agreed upon during negotiations. The Union's chief negotiator, Larson, was an experi- enced labor negotiator having negotiated more than a hun- dred contracts, but he had no prior experience negotiating agreements for employees in the office and clerical unit of a credit bureau. Although the Union's initial proposal served as a basis of most negotiations, Orrin did offer three written propos- als during negotiations and several verbal proposals. The negotiations consisted in part of the Union reading clauses to Orrin and then taking notes based on his reactions. The notes were not shown to Orrin nor did he ask to see them during these sessions. The parties had been through six face-to-face meetings with the final session occurring in the presence of a Federal mediator on June 23 to discuss three issues that the parties were unable to resolve and to reduce to writing, namely, wages, term of contract, and the union security clause. During a series of phone conversations be- tween June 24 and June 30, Orrin and Larson resolved these issues. The Union withdrew its union-security clause proposal, agreement was reached on a I-year contract, and an agreement was reached on the wage scale. By June 30, contract negotiations were completed. Larson testified that on June 29, Secretary Watson held a meeting with the em- ployees in the parking lot of the company at which time Respondent's employees ratified the agreement. On June 29, after ratification of the agreement by the employees, Watson called Larson who was in Kansas City and notified him of the ratification of the agreement and Larson in turn called Orrin and told him that the employ- ees had agreed to it and that "we had an agreement." Lar- son further testified that Orrin was very relieved and said he was glad that this was over with and that he could now get to running his business, and the girls could get back to "doing their matter." Orrin then invited Larson to come out and look at his horses. The Union typed a draft of a contract and on August 8 mailed a copy to Respondent for his signature. Apparently, there was a disagreement as to form concerning the office rules. The Union was of the view that the office rules after they had been agreed upon would be incorporated into a contract by reference, while Orrin apparently understood that they were to be embodied in the contract and made a part of the provisions thereof. Since September 18, Orrin has had a complete copy of the collective bargaining agreement which the parties agreed to, but has refused to execute it. Orrin complained to the Union's local representative, Watson, that the agreed upon office rules were not included in this tentative agreement and that his lawyer should see the rules also, whereupon the Union mailed Orrin the office rules for his lawyer's review. In any event, Orrin received the rules on or about September 18 as a separate document. Whether or not the rules were to be incorporated by reference or typed in as provisions in the body of the agreement, there was no substantive issue remaining, it was merely a question of form.2 Having received a complete package of the two docu- ments. Orrin sent them to his corporate and labor lawyers for their review. During that period that followed Orrin received several phone calls from Larson and Watson requesting that he sign the contract. Orrin said he had some concern that in his opinion some details were improper and would meet as soon as he received the materials back from his lawyers. On September 26, before any materials had been re- turned to Orrin from his corporate attorney, and before he had supplied his labor attorney with the completed pack- age, Larson telephoned Orrin and told him that the em- ployees were tired of his excuses, that they were concerned because he had not yet signed the contract, and that they were contemplating a strike. Orrin replied that his lawyers still had the material and were reviewing them as per the 'There was also a section of the rules that was inadvertently omitted which the Union agreed to reinstate. INTERNATIONAL CREDIT SERVICE 717 ground rules and that he had only had both documents since September 18. The two men discussed the possibility of instituting a wage increase, the amounts of which had been previously agreed upon during negotiations by the parties, prior to Orrin going on vacation with the understanding that he would sign the contract upon his return. This was consid- ered as a means of averting the strike, but Larson condi- tioned this agreement on the employees' approval thereof. Larson then discussed the matter with Secretary Watson and on the following day Watson informed Larson that that was not acceptable to the employees and that they wanted a contract "signed, sealed and delivered." Larson then telephoned Orrin and told him that the employees rejected an increase and that they wanted a signed con- tract. Orrin responded he was going to institute the wage increase for the pay period that was then in effect; that he would contact Watson on the 12th when he got back from vacation; and that he would then institute the retroactivity "and if this was not acceptable to the Union, the Union can do whatever it wanted." 3 On October 3 the union representatives met with the em- ployees who expressed a desire to go out on strike. It was the leadership's feeling that since Respondent had already left for his vacation, that it would be ridiculous to strike at that time, since the employees would be walking the street, until such time as he got back, for no purpose. So it was decided that they would not go on strike until Orrin re- turned from his vacation. They decided to wait until Re- spondent came back on the 12th and agreed to allow him until October 21 to get the contract signed and have the retroactivity and all the other provisions put into effect. It was further decided that unless the contract was "signed, sealed and delivered" by 5 p.m. on Friday, October 21, that they would then strike on October 24. The strike commenced on the 24th and on that day Lar- son called Orrin and asked if they could get together. Orrin said that as long as the employees were out on the street, he would not meet with the union representative. However, Orrin did call Larson the next day and told him that he would meet with him on October 27. On October 27, Wat- son, Larson and, Marty Burkes represented the Union, and Orrin and his son, Michael Orrin, Respondent, as through- out the negotiations no attorneys were present. At that meeting, the parties got into a discussion concerning the office rules. Larson said that the employees were not happy with part of the rules, but that since he had submitted them to Orrin as a final agreement that they would withdraw any objections that the employees might have with respect to them, and asked Orrin to affix his signature thereto. Orrin refused to sign. Larson asked Orrin if everything was agreeable with respect to the rules and Orrin replied, "Yes." Larson then asked, "Will you affix your signature?" Ornn replied, "No." At that meeting the parties then went through the contract again and Orrin told Larson that he did not agree with what was submitted. Larson asked Orrin what he did not agree with. And again they ran through each provision of the contract. With respect to article I, "Life of the Agreement," Orrin Orrin testified that he acted on the ad% ice of the mediator. wanted new language. As written, the agreement provided that "unless either party shall give a written notice of the desire to terminate or change 60 days prior to the expira- tion date" the agreement was to remain in effect. Larson told Orrin that he had the right to terminate the agreement the way it was written; Orrin said he did not like the lan- guage but he did not offer any other language at that point. With respect to article II, which deals with jurisdiction, Orrin wanted language in the agreement that would cover Jane Croft, an employee who was not in the bargaining unit, stating specifically that she would not be in the bar- gaining unit. That was the first time that Orrin raised that Issue. With respect to article I.II, Orrin said he did not agree to it and that he wanted new language, but he did not offer any new language. As to article IV, he had nothing to offer. As to article V, the language that Orrin had submitted. Orrin now said he did not want it. denying that he had given that language to the Union. With respect to article VI, which deals with changes in working force, Orrin said he did not want to give a 2-week notice with respect to layoff or termination of an employee. He had brought this matter up before, it was negotiated. and Orrin had ulti- mately agreed to it as written. With respect to article IX. dealing with office rules, Orrin took the position that he did not want the office rules to be mutually agreed to or to be part of the contract. He wanted the sole right with re- spect to writing the office rules and did not want to negoti- ate with respect to them. With respect to articles X and Xl. Orrin took the position that he did not want concilliation or arbitration in the contract, and that he did not want outsiders to settle differences. He also took the position that he wanted a no-strike, no-walkout clause inserted in the contract, contrary to what was previously agreed to. With respect to article XIV, which deals with jury duty, Orrin said he wanted language in the contract requiring an employee to produce a receipt in the event that that em- ployee were called for jury duty, a matter he made no men- tion of during the negotiations. With respect to article XVI I, concerning holidays, Orrin said he wanted all the S's removed and that he wanted no plurals. The only plural in the article is the word "holidays" referring to the number of holidays and all else dealt with the specific holiday stat- ed in the singular. Orrin wanted the plural taken out and the singular "holiday" inserted in the one place where the plural appeared. With respect to article XIX, dealing with sick leave, Or- rin said he did not agree to 10 days of sick leave. With respect to article XXI. dealing with wages, Orrin stated that after they had reached agreement on wages, Congress passed a new minimum wage law and inasmuch as the contract dealt with starting wages at minimum wage. he now wanted to renegotiate the wage portion because Con- gress had changed the minimum wage law. I. Request for information At the meeting of October 27, Larson asked Orrin for the names, job classifications, starting rates, and any increases Orrin had instituted from March I I because Larson had heard that Orrin was unilaterally implementing wage in- 718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS HOARD creases without notifying the Union. Larson said the infor- mation was not furnished to him until the end of Decem- ber. 2. The strike The union representative told Orrin that he should meet with them before Monday, October 24, and sign a docu- ment so there would not be a strike. Orrin felt that he was unable to do so in view of the discrepancies that had been discovered by his attorneys in both agreements. 3. The speech On October 21, upon hearing rumors that a strike would likely occur on Monday, October 24, Orrin made a speech to his employees in which he explained his situation. He told them that he had heard rumors that they were going out on strike Monday, and that he wanted them to know that he could not stop them from going out on strike, that it was their right and privilege to go out on strike, but he wanted them to know that he talked to Watson, and he could not arrange a meeting with him because Post, Orrin's attorney, was out of town and that he offered to arrange a meeting with him the following Tuesday but he was told that it was too late. He went on to say that he was willing to meet him on Tuesday, to try to resolve the matter but that he had a business to run and that he would continue to operate if the "girls" went out on strike, that he would hire new people, would do his best to keep his doors open, and that he was ready to meet with the employees' representa- tives the following Tuesday. Discussion and Conclusions It is clear that Respondent and the Union apparently bargained in good faith during the first six sessions. During those sessions, there was much give and take, and Larson's notes, which were taken during those sessions reveal that there was an agreement with respect to the substance and most of the language of all the provisions of the contract and office rules. The ground rules were that Orrin, as presi- dent of Respondent, had full authority to commit Respon- dent to any and all provisions that he agreed to with the only reservation that, upon completion of the negotiations, his lawyers would review the agreement, reduced to writing by the Union, presumably for the purpose of checking lan- guage and form as opposed to policy or substance which was the sole prerogative of Orrin. In other words what was left to the legal advisors were comments with respect to form or language. Thus, by the act of submitting copies of the documents furnished to him by the Union to his attorneys for review Orrin demonstrated, that, in accordance to the ground rules, he had agreed to the provisions in the contract. He was foreclosed, therefore from trying to renegotiate the substance of the provisions which he had previously agreed to. The record is clear that an agreement was indeed reached and except for possible changes in form or lan- guage it was incumbent upon Orrin to execute it. H. J. Heinz Company v. N.L.R.B., 311 U.S. 514 (1941). After the contract had been reduced to writing by the Union, Orrin demanded several substantive and language changes. () He wanted the language of article V, "Mailing address." changed despite the fact that he himself had pro- posed the exact language he was objecting to. (2) He want- ed the continuing right to change the office rules as he pleased despite the fact that he had demanded they be definitive and made part of the contract. (3) He wanted to renegotiate wages because the legal minimum wage had increased since the wage agreement. (4) He wanted a "no- strike no-walkout" clause in the contract despite the fact that he had previously objected to the Union's proposal for such a clause in May. Accordingly, I find that he had reached agreement with the Union on the substance of each provision of the con- tract under discussion and after the contract was reduced to writing and he submitted it to his attorneys for review, he attempted, in bad faith, to renegotiate the substance, as opposed to the form and language, of several of the provi- sions which he had previously agreed to in substance, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. 4. The unilateral increase in pay Orrin gave the employees a unilateral increase in pay, admittedly to dissuade them from striking, even though he was informed that neither the employees nor their repre- sentative agreed to the increase because they were standing on their rights to have him sign the contract that he had agreed to. That conduct is strong evidence of his cavalier attitude toward the statutory rights of his employees de- spite what he told them about recognizing and respecting their rights. In agreement with the General Counsel, I find that Respondent's conduct was not privileged and violated Section 8(a)( ) and (5) of the Act. 5. Respondent's speech to the employees On October 21, at 4 p.m., on the eve of the strike, Re- spondent made a speech to his employees on company premises, informing them among other things, that work was slow, that he was doing everything he could to provide work for them, and that he had heard rumors that they were going out on strike. He said he would replace them if they did not report to work on the following Monday. Or- nn admitted that he made the speech in an attempt to prevent a strike and that he told them he would replace them if they chose to strike. In the circumstances, I believe that his actions constituted a violation of law. N.L.R.B. v. J. H. Rutter-Rex Manufacturing Company, Inc., 245 F.2d 594, 597, fn. 3 (5th Cir. 1957). 6. The delay in furnishing requested information On October 27, the Union asked Orrin to furnish it with the names and wage rates of unit employees who were hired since June 1977, information which is necessary for, and relevant to, the Union's performance of its function as collective-bargaining representative. This information was not furnished to the Union until December 9, and supple- mented on January 3, 1978, after complaint issued. INTERNATIONAL CREDIT SERVICE 719 In my judgment, the information requested was neces- sary and relevant to the Union's carrying out its responsi- bilities as a collective bargaining representative of Respon- dent's employees. It was incumbent upon Respondent to provide the Union with the information requested within a reasonable time even though some of the information may not have been available at the time. As of October 27. all but two of the employees had been hired and five of the six wage increases had been put into effect. Accordingly, as no justifiable reason for the long delay in providing the Union with necessary and relevant information has been shown. I find Respondent's conduct to be in violation of Section 8(a)(l) and (5) of the Act. Queen Mary Restaurants Corpo- ration, 219 NLRB 776, 794 (1975), and Keystone Casing Supply, Inc., 196 NLRB 920 (1972). 7. Employees engaged in unfair labor practice strike Having found that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by refusing to execute the document he had previously agreed to, granting a unilateral wage in- crease, and making a speech to his employees informing them they would be replaced if they went on strike and having found that such conduct occured before the plan- ned strike based on said refusal to execute the agreement, I find that the strike was caused by Respondent's unfair la- bor practices and accordingly is an unfair labor practice strike. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record I make the following: CONC LUSIONS OF LAW I. International Credit Service, A Division of Lucas County Credit Bureau. Inc., Respondent, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Toledo Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 55, International Printing and Graphic Communications Union, AFL-CIO, the Union, is a labor organization with- in the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. "All office clerical employees including mail girls, re- ceptionists, typists, secretaries, keypunch operators and bookkeepers, but excluding collectors, and professionals, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees" constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. The Union is the exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid unit for the purpose of collec- tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. By refusing and continuing to refuse to execute a written agreement embodying rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of emplo'- ment agreed upon between Respondent and the Union prior to September 19, and by attempting to renegotiate that agreement, Respondent has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(1 ) and (5) of the Act. 6. By unilaterally implementing during a critical period, employee wage increases, effective October 14. Respon- dent attempted to undermine the Union's bargaining posi- tion and has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(I) and (5) of the Act. 7. With knowledge that the Union intended to com- mence a strike on or about October 24, Respondent en- gaged in direct dealing with the employees in the unit by instructing said employees to disregard the instructions of the Union: to refrain from concerted activities: and to re- port for work on October 24. or be replaced. By such con- duct Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. 8. By refusing to furnish the Union within a reasonable time requested information including the names and wage rates of employees in the unit, information which is neces- sary and relevant to the Union's performance of its func- tions as collective-bargaining representatives of the em- ployees. Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. 9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THF. REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor practices affecting com- merce. I shall recommend that it cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action in order to effec- tuate the purposes of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law. and the entire record and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: ORDER 4 The Respondent, International Credit Service, A Divi- sion of Lucas County Credit Bureau, Inc.. Toledo, Ohio. its officers, agents, successors, and assigns. shall: I. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Toledo Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 55. Interna- tional Printing and Graphic Communications Union. AFL-CIO, by refusing to execute the written agreement embodying rates of pay. wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment agreed upon between Respondent and the Union prior to September 19. (b) Unilaterally implementing employee wage increases. (c) Engaging in direct dealing with the employees in the unit described above by instructing said employees to dis- regard the instructions of the Union, to refrain from con- certed activities, and to report to work or be replaced. 4In Ihe eent no exceptions atre filed .1a provlided h Sec I02 4 of the Rules and Reula tions of the Natioll.l I.la hlr Relations Board. the findings. concluslns. and recotimmlended Order herein hall. as prolded in Sec. 102 48 of the Rules and Regulations. he adopted h the Board and hbecotme Its findings. conclusions. and ()rder. and .ll ohiectlons Ihereto shall hbe deemed o ai.ed for all purpo,cs. NTERNATONAL CREDIT SERVICE 720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (d) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union by refusing upon request to supply relevant information need- ed by the said Union to represent the employees in the unit described above. (e) Attempting to renegotiate certain contractual provi- sions and/or clauses previously agreed to by the parties. (f) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is neces- sary to affectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Execute a written agreement embodying rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment agreed upon between Respon- dent and the Union prior to September 19. (b) Post at its office and place of business where notices to employees represented by the aforesaid Union in the bargaining unit herein above are customarily posted by Respondent, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- dix." 5 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 8, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by Respon- dent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including, as described above, all places where no- tices to employees employed in the appropriate bargaining unit are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be tak- en by Respondent to ensure that said notices are not al- tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith. In the event that this Order is enforced bh a judgment of the United States (ourt of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted bh Order of the National I.abor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National l.abor Relations Board." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the Toledo Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union No. 55, International Printing and Graphic Communica- tions Union, AFL-CIO, by refusing to execute the written agreement embodying rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other terms and conditions of employment agreed upon between us and the Union prior to September 19, 1977. WE WILL NOT unilaterally implement employee wage increases. WE WILL NOT engage in direct dealing with the em- ployees in the unit by instructing the employees to disregard instructions of the Union to refrain from concerted activities and to report to work or be re- placed. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the Union by refusing upon request to supply relevant in- formation needed by the Union to represent the em- ployees in the unit. WE WILL NOT attempt to renegotiate certain contrac- tual provisions and/or clauses previously agreed to by us. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL upon request of the Union execute a writ- ten agreement embodying rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other terms and conditions of em- ployment agreed upon between the Union and our- selves prior to September 19, 1977. That collective- bargaining agreement to cover the following unit: All office clerical employees including mail girls, re- ceptionists, typists, secretaries, keypunch operators and bookkeepers, but excluding collectors, and pro- fessionals, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees. INTERNATIONAL CREDIT SERVICE A DIVISION OF LUCAS COUNTY CREDIT BUREAU, INC.