K & L Fire Protection Systems

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 31, 1992

306 N.L.R.B. 988 (N.L.R.B. 1992)

988
306 NLRB No. 200
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 The Respondent’s exceptions, filed by Lawrence Babbitt Jr., its
vice president appearing pro se, relate primarily to the circumstances
surrounding the Respondent’s failure to retain counsel for this pro-
ceeding. The Respondent contends that the judge denied it proce-
dural due process at the hearing by not granting Babbitt’s request
for a 2-week continuance. We find, based on the following facts,
that the judge did not abuse his discretion by finding the request un-
timely and then going forward with the hearing. On May 2, 1991,
the complaint issued and set the hearing date for November 14,
1991. On May 31, 1991, the Respondent filed a Chapter 11 bank-
ruptcy petition. On November 11, 1991, the Respondent applied to
the bankruptcy court for authorization to appoint an attorney to rep-
resent it in this proceeding. At the hearing Babbitt informed the
judge about the application and requested the continuance to await
approval by the court. The judge, however, agreed with the counsel
for the General Counsel that, because the complaint had been out-
standing for more than 6 months, the application, made only 3 days
before the hearing and without notice to the counsel for the General
Counsel, was an insufficient basis for seeking a delay in the hearing.
In connection with our rejection of the Respondent’s due-process
claim, and noting that the bankruptcy court authorized the employ-
ment of an attorney on November 20, 1991, we also deem it signifi-
cant that Babbitt continued to represent the Respondent, apparently
without aid of counsel, by filing the brief to the judge and the ex-
ceptions to the judge’s decision. In these circumstances, there is no
basis for finding prejudicial error in the conduct of the hearing, nor
do we find any basis for granting Babbitt’s motions to reopen the
record or for a hearing de novo.
2 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an admin-
istrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear prepon-
derance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incor-
rect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188
F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and
find no basis for reversing the findings.
1 Unless indicated otherwise, all dates are in 1991.
2 Respondent enclosed a number of ‘‘attachments’’ along with its
memorandum. Because these attachments were never offered into
evidence and are therefore not part of the record, they were returned
to Respondent and were not considered.
K & L Fire Protection Systems, Inc. and Sprinkler
Fitters Local Union 676. Case 34–CA–5137
March 31, 1992
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS OVIATT
AND RAUDABAUGH
On January 14, 1992, Administrative Law Judge
Joel P. Biblowitz issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions1 and brief and has de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,2 and con-
clusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, K & L Fire Protection Sys-
tems, Inc., West Haven, Connecticut, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Order.
William O’Connor, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Lawrence Babbit Jr., for the Respondent.
Robert M. Cherverie, Esq. (Ashcraft & Gerel), for the Charg-
ing Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JOEL P. BIBLOWITZ, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was heard by me on November 14, 1991,1 in Hartford, Con-
necticut. The complaint and notice of hearing, which issued
on May 2, and was based on an unfair labor practice charge
filed on March 18 by Sprinkler Fitters Local Union 676 (the
Union) alleges that K & L Fire Protection Systems, Inc. (Re-
spondent) since about December 1, 1990, has unilaterally
failed to continue in full force and effect its contract with the
Union by failing to make the contractually required payments
to the National Automatic Sprinkler Industry Welfare Fund,
National Automatic Sprinkler Industry Pension Fund, Sprin-
kler Industry Supplemental Pension Fund, National Auto-
matic Sprinkler Education Fund, and the Apprentice Fund of
New York. The complaint further alleges that Respondent
unilaterally failed to pay the required wages to the following
of its employees: Donald Schmaling, Joseph Preston, Andy
Katona, Thomas Sullivan, Stanley Sulik, David Bemis, Wil-
liam Robsky, Alan Pierce, William Tomlin, James DeVito,
Robert Crain, Jose Collazo, Howard Ceccarini, James Doyle,
and George DeVincke. By these actions, Respondent is al-
leged to have violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
On the entire record, including the briefs received2 and my
observations of the witnesses, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent, a Connecticut corporation with its office lo-
cated in West Haven, Connecticut, is engaged as a contractor
installing sprinkler fire protection systems. During the 12-
month period ending March 31, Respondent purchased and
received at its West Haven facility products, goods, and ma-
terials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points out-
side the State of Connecticut. During the same period, Re-
spondent performed services valued in excess of $50,000 in
States other than the State of Connecticut. Respondent ad-
mits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. LABOR ORGANIZATION STATUS
Respondent admits, and I find, that the Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. FACTS AND ANALYSIS
Many items are not in dispute: on September 10, 1990,
Respondent and the Union entered into a short-form agree-
ment for Independent Employers. This obliged Respondent to
abide by the terms of the Union’s agreement with the Na-
989K & L FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS
3 Respondent’s memorandum states that the travel expenses are
$168.
4 Respondent’s memorandum lists the travel expenses as $123.
tional Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc. and the Mechanical
Contractors Association of Connecticut, Inc., effective Au-
gust 1, 1990. This agreement requires that certain wages and
expenses be paid to the employees, and that specified pay-
ments be made to the funds specified in that agreement. Re-
spondent admits that it has not made certain of the required
payments to the employees and funds. Respondent filed for
bankruptcy on May 31.
No case citation is needed for the proposition that the uni-
lateral failure to make contractually agreed-on payments vio-
lates Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. As regards Respond-
ent’s difficult financial situation, the Board, in Nick
Robilotto, Inc., 292 NLRB 1279 (1989) stated: ‘‘The Re-
spondent’s claim that it is financially unable to make the re-
quired payments does not constitute an adequate defense to
an allegation that an employer violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) and Section 8(d) of the Act by failing to abide by a pro-
vision of a collective-bargaining agreement.’’ It is therefore
admitted that Respondent violated the Act; the only issue is
the amount that Respondent failed to pay or underpaid, both
to the employees and to the funds here. Each employee in-
volved here will be discussed separately below and then the
amounts due to the funds will be discussed.
The wage rate for the journeymen under the agreement
was $22.80 an hour; an additional $1.50 (or $24.30) was
paid to the foremen. The agreement also provides for the
payment of travel expenses to the employees, dependent on
the distance to the job. There is agreement between the par-
ties over the amount owed to 7 of the 14 employees in-
volved.
Donald Schmaling, a foreman, is owed for 96 hours
(March 18–22, March 25–28, April 1, 2, and 8) at $24.30 an
hour, plus $160 travel expenses3 for a total of $2492.80.
Joseph Preston, a journeyman, is owed for 96 hours
(March 18–22, March 25–28, April 1, 2, and 8) at $22.80 an
hour, plus $60 travel expenses, for a total of $2248.80.
Andy Katona, a journeyman, is owed for 88 hours (March
18–22, March 25–28, April 1, 2, and 8) at $22.80 an hour,
plus $154 in travel expenses, for a total of $2160.40.
George DeVincke, a journeyman, is owed for 56 hours
(March 4–8, and March 11 and 12) at $22.80 an hour, plus
$119 in travel expenses,4 for a total of $1395.80.
William Robsky, an apprentice, is owed for 80 hours
(March 18–22, 25, and 28, and April 1 and 2) at $15.96 an
hour, plus $170 in travel expenses, for a total of $1446.80.
William Tomlin, a journeyman, originally, was not paid 40
hours of work between February 15 and March 1, 32 hours
between March 4 and 8, and 24 hours between March 18 and
20, plus $204 in travel expenses. Subsequently, Respondent
reimbursed Tomlin for all except 16 hours at $22.80 an hour
and $34 travel expenses for a total of $398.80.
Jose Collazo is owed the sum of $480.12, although the
record does not set forth the period of time that this amount
represents.
The parties disagree on the amount owed to the employees
who follow.
David Sulik: The parties agree that Sulik was a journey-
man earning $22.80 an hour; the General Counsel alleges
that he is owed for a total of 120 hours in the following
manner: February 1, 8 hours at $22.80 an hour, plus $14
travel expenses; February 2, 8 hours at double time ($45.60
an hour) plus $14 travel expenses; March 2 and 3, 16 hours
at double time, plus $14 travel expenses; March 18–22, 40
hours at $22.80 an hour, plus $70 travel expenses; March
25–28, 32 hours at $22.80 an hour, plus $56 travel expenses;
and April 1 and 2, 16 hours at $22.80 an hour, plus $28 trav-
el expenses. All this totals $3479.20. Respondent’s memo-
randum admits that Sulik was owed for 96 hours at regular
time of $22.80, plus $168 travel expenses. Additionally,
Lawrence Babbitt, vice president of Respondent, testified that
Sulik (now deceased) was owed for working on February 2
and March 2 and 3, all weekend days and therefore payable
under the contractual rate of double time, $45.60 an hour.
That would, apparently, account for the discrepancy of 24
hours, and I therefore find, as alleged in the General Coun-
sel’s brief, that Sulik is owed $3479.20.
Thomas Sullivan: The parties agree that he is owed for 96
hours. They disagree on the hourly rate; the General Counsel
alleges that he was an apprentice paid at $19.38 an hour. Re-
spondent alleges that he should be paid at $17.61 an hour.
The agreement provides that apprentices are to be paid an
amount equal to 40 to 85 percent of the journeyman rate, de-
pendent on the classification of the apprentice. Babbitt testi-
fied that Sullivan’s hourly rate was the same as David
Bemis, who testified that during the period in question he
was paid $19.38 an hour. I therefore find that Sullivan is en-
titled to 96 hours at $19.38 an hour, plus $154 travel ex-
penses, for a total of $2014.48. This was for 40 hours on
March 18–22; 32 hours for March 25–28; and 8 hours each,
April 1, 2, and 8.
David Bemis: The General Counsel alleges that Bemis is
owed for 96 hours (40 hours March 18–22; 32 hours March
25–28; and 8 hours each, April 1, 2, and 8) at his apprentice
rate of $19.38 an hour, plus $168 in travel expenses. Re-
spondent alleges that Bemis is owed for 88 hours at $18.24
an hour. Bemis testified that his regular hourly rate at the
time was $19.38 an hour, and I so find. Schmaling testified
that Bemis worked in his crew for 24 hours during the week
of March 18–22; 32 hours from March 25–28; and 8 hours
each on April 1, 2, and 8, plus $14 a day travel expenses
for each of those days. In addition, Bemis testified that he
worked on March 20 and 21, for 8 hours each day, on a dif-
ferent job. I therefore find that, as alleged by the General
Counsel, Bemis is owed for 96 hours at $19.38 an hour, plus
$168 travel expenses, for a total of $2028.48.
James DeVito: At the hearing the parties stipulated that
Devito as a foreman earned $24.30 an hour and was owed
for 40 hours of regular time at this rate, two 8-hour shifts
at double time ($48.60), and 7 days of travel at $9 a day,
for a total of $1812.60. No period of time is specified for
this employment. Respondent, in his memorandum, states
that DeVito is owed $1127.67 ‘‘for a check which was re-
turned.’’ This is not explained or supported further. I find
that, as the parties stipulated at the hearing, DeVito is owed
$1812.60 by Respondent.
James Doyle: Doyle was a foreman earning the regular
rate of $24.30 an hour. The General Counsel alleges that for
the week of July 22–27 he was owed for 40 hours at the reg-
ular rate, 8 hours at time and a half ($36.45 an hour), 10
hours at double time ($48.60 an hour), and $54 in travel ex-
990 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
penses; for the week of July 29 to August 2 he was owed
for 40 hours at the regular rate, 4 hours at time and a half,
and $45 travel expenses; and for August 12 and 13, he was
owed for 16 hours at the regular rate and $18 for travel ex-
penses, a total of $3373.20. Respondent’s memorandum
states that Doyle is owed $7908; that by agreement of Re-
spondent, Doyle, and ‘‘Roth Brothers,’’ Roth Brothers would
pay him $3950 of this amount and the Respondent would
pay him the balance, $3958. Doyle testified that the days and
amounts above alleged by the General Counsel were the days
he worked and was never paid for. In cross-examining
Doyle, Babbitt did not dispute his testimony, but alleged that
a contractor on that job was supposed to pay Doyle’s salary,
but failed to do so. Without necessarily blaming Respondent
for this failure to pay, Doyle was employed by Respondent,
who was therefore obligated to pay him pursuant to the con-
tract with the Union. The record supports the General Coun-
sel’s claim that he is owed $3373.20 for this period.
Alan Pierce: Pierce was employed by Respondent as a
foreman at the $24.30 regular hourly rate. The testimony es-
tablishes that Pierce worked and was not paid for the fol-
lowing times: the week of February 11–16, 24 hours at
$24.30 an hour, 8 hours at $48.60 an hour, and 4 days’ travel
expense at $5 a day. For the week of February 25 through
March 1, 40 hours at $24.30 an hour and $25 travel ex-
penses. For the week March 4–9, 40 hours at $24.30 an hour,
3-1/2 hours at time and a half ($36.45 an hour), 8 hours at
double time ($48.60), and $30 travel expenses, and for
March 16, 8 hours at double time ($48.60) and $5 travel ex-
penses. The total owed for these days is $3821.18.
Robert Crain: The General Counsel alleges that Crain, a
journeyman, is owed for 8 hours for work on February 2, a
Saturday. It would therefore be at doubletime, $45.60 an
hour. Crain did not testify, so there is no evidence what his
travel expenses are. Respondent defends that he is owed no
money and that this claim should be denied because he was
paid in full when he left their employ. Respondent’s payroll
records for the week in question establish that he worked 8
hours on February 2 and that he was paid for 40 hours that
week, but was not paid for any double time that week. Ac-
cording to Babbitt: ‘‘It’s my feeling, definitely, that he was
paid,’’ although he has no documents to prove it. Because
Saturday work is payable at doubletime ($45.60 an hour),
that pay would have to appear separately on Crain’s payroll
for that week. As it was not, and there is no other proof that
he was paid for that day, I find that he is owed for 8 hours
at $45.60 an hour, or $364.80.
Howard Ceccarini: Ceccarini was a journeyman who also
functioned for Respondent as a foreman. The General Coun-
sel alleges that Respondent owes him for three periods: 40
hours, January 28 through February 1, at $24.30 an hour; 8
hours, on February 2, at double time, $48.60 an hour; and
16 hours, February 9–10, at double time, $48.60 an hour.
Additionally, it is alleged that Ceccarini is owed $295.07 for
travel expenses. Respondent alleges that this claim should be
denied because he was paid in full. Ceccarini’s testimony is
complicated because it involves a number of bounced checks
which were subsequently resubmitted for payment.
However, he testified that he was never paid for Monday
through Saturday, January 28 through February 2, at the fore-
man’s rate of $24–30 for the first 5 days, and double time
($48.60) for February 2, and 16 hours the following week-
end, February 9–10, at double time, $48.60 an hour. He was
paid for the 40 hours he worked Monday through Friday,
February 4–8. During subsequent questioning by Babbitt, the
General Counsel, and me, he testified that on February 27,
Mike Pope, Respondent’s superintendent, paid him in cash
for his payroll the prior week, the week ending February 22,
based on $1390 earnings that week. (Unfortunately, it is not
clear whether he received $1390 gross or net, but I assume
it is $1390 gross.) He worked 40 hours, Monday through Fri-
day, that week as a journeyman. Ceccarini testified that this
$1390 payment was his salary for that week, including travel
expenses. Babbitt alleges that this was meant to cover prior
periods owed, as well. Simple computations show that for his
last week of employment at Respondent (40 hours at the
journeyman rate) his gross pay should have been $872 plus
travel expenses. That is substantially less than the $1390 he
was paid on February 27, a difference of about $400, even
after his expenses. In the absence of any better explanation,
I find it reasonable to assume that this difference represents
the pay for one of Ceccarini’s weekend days at double time,
either February 2, 9, or 10. As the foreman, double time for
8 hours comes to $388.80 for the day; with travel expenses,
this is about the difference of what he was paid for on Feb-
ruary 27, and the prior week’s workweek, and I so find.
To complicate matters further, after Ceccarini completed
his testimony and left the hearing, Respondent introduced
into evidence checks that it had located that were payable to
Ceccarini. The first is dated January 31, in the amount of
$823, and says that it is for the week ending January 26. The
next is dated February 7, in the amount of $1254, and states
that it is for the week ending February 2. The final check
is dated February 14 in the amount of $979. Respondent al-
leges that these checks establish that Ceccarini was paid in
full for this period. I find that the evidence does not support
this contention. Ceccarini was a credible witness who testi-
fied, repeatedly, about the days for which Respondent had
not paid him; the difficulty that this case entails is due en-
tirely to Respondent and the mess it made of its payroll dur-
ing the period in question. Just as possible as Respondent’s
contention that these checks prove that he was paid for the
period is the possibility that they were meant to cover pre-
vious of Respondent’s checks that bounced. I therefore find
that Ceccarini is owed for 1 weekend day less than he testi-
fied and the General Counsel alleges, and is owed for the
week of January 28 through February 1, 40 hours at $24.30
an hour, and February 9–10, 16 hours at the $48.60 double
time rate, plus 7 days of travel expenses at $23 a day, for
a total of $1910.60.
The complaint further alleges, and Respondent admits, that
it failed to make the proper contributions to the following
union funds: National Automatic Sprinkler Industry Welfare
Fund, National Automatic Sprinkler Industry Pension Fund,
Sprinkler Industry Supplemental Pension Fund, National
Automatic Sprinkler Industry Education Fund, and the Ap-
prentice Fund of New York. The amounts of each of these
contributions, based on hours worked of covered employees,
is set forth in the agreement. The only change is that in
about August 1990 the contribution to the Supplemental Pen-
sion Fund was increased to $3 an hour. The issue is how
many hours of contributions did Respondent owe to these
funds; obviously, in the situation here, this determination is
bound to be an approximation. In arriving at this determina-
991K & L FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS
5 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
6 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court
of appeals, the words in the notice reading ‘‘Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board’’ shall read ‘‘Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board.’’
tion, I begin with a summary produced for the hearing by
Respondent showing (or attempting to show) the total num-
ber of hours his employees worked, monthly, from December
1990 through May. In addition, Schmaling, who was the
foreman for Respondent on the Boereinger project in Dan-
bury, Connecticut, summarized the hours worked by his crew
at that project in March and April. The April hours are clear-
ly not included on Respondent’s monthly summary of hours,
so these hours (152 hours worked by Schmaling, Preston,
Katona, Sullivan, Sulik, Bemis, and Robsky) will be added
to those set forth in Respondent’s summary. Finally, Re-
spondent also produced trust fund reports for June through
August for which payments were not made, and admitted
that the June report was 18 hours short, 9 hours each for
hours worked by, but not reported for, Pierce and DeVincke.
To be subtracted from these hours are the hours that Re-
spondent actually paid into the trust fund during these peri-
ods. The final item is in regard to Pope, whom Babbitt ad-
mits has continued to work approximately 40 hours a week
from August to the date of the hearing here, about 400 hours.
Respondent therefore owes contributions to the Union’s
funds for the following number of hours:
December 1990—2424
January 1991—3072.5
February 1991—3954
March 1991—2607
April 1991—1106
May 1991—711
June 1991—100
July 1991—493
August 1991—268
September through November 1991—400
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The following employees of Respondent constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All journeymen sprinklerfitters and apprentices em-
ployed by the Respondent at its West Haven, Con-
necticut facility, but excluding all other employees and
guards, professional employees and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
4. Since on or about December 1, 1990, Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by failing to pay
the contractually agreed-on wages to its employees and fail-
ing to make the contractually required contributions to the
following union funds, without the consent of the Union: Na-
tional Automatic Sprinkler Industry Welfare Fund, National
Automatic Sprinkler Industry Pension Fund, Sprinkler Indus-
try Supplemental Pension Fund, National Automatic Sprin-
kler Education Fund, and the Apprentice Fund of New York.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be ordered to
cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act, simply
to pay to the above-mentioned union funds the following
amounts that it has unlawfully failed to pay. From December
1990 through August 1991, the required contributions for the
following number of hours, monthly: 2424, 3072.5, 3954,
2607, 1106, 711, 100, 493 and 268, plus contributions for
400 hours of work for Pope for September through Novem-
ber. I shall also recommend that Respondent be ordered to
pay the following amounts to the employees named here:
Schmaling—$2492.80; Preston—$2248.80; Katona—
$2160.40; DeVincke—$1395.80; Robsky—$1446.80;
Tomlin—$398.80; Collazo—$480.12; Sulik— S3479.20; Sul-
livan—$2014.48; Bemis—$2028.48; DeVito—$1812.60;
Doyle—$3373.20; Pierce—$3821.18; Crain—$364.80; and
Ceccarini—$1910.60.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended5
ORDER
The Respondent, K & L Fire Protection Systems, Inc.,
West Haven, Connecticut, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Unilaterally discontinuing, or failing to make, the prop-
er payments to its employees and to the Union’s funds with-
out prior negotiations with the Union.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Pay to the above-named employees and to the union
funds named above the contractually required wages and
contributions for the number of hours as set forth above in
the remedy section.
(b) Post at its facility in West Haven, Connecticut, copies
of the attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’6 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re-
gion 34, after being signed by Respondent’s authorized rep-
resentative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by Respondent to ensure that the notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board
or its agents for copying, all records and documents nec-
essary to analyze and determine the amount owed to the
union funds.
992 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us
to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to pay our employees the con-
tractual wage rate as set forth in our agreement with Sprin-
kler Fitters Local Union 676.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to make the contractually re-
quired payments to the union funds without first engaging in
full good-faith negotiations with the Union to the point of
impasse.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL reimburse our employees and the Union’s funds
for the contributions we unlawfully failed and refused to
make for the period December 1990 through November
1991.
K & L FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS, INC.