Michael Rossi Carpet Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJan 28, 1974

208 N.L.R.B. 748 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Murray Bagdasarian d/b/a Michael Rossi Carpet Co. and Detroit Resilient Floor Decorators Local Union No. 2265, United Brotherhood of Carpen- ters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO. Case 7-CA-10318 January 28, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY' CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On September 12, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Abraham H. Maller issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the attached. Decision in light of the exceptions and-brief 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 Relations, Board adopts as its Order the recommend- ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that Respondent, Murray Bagdasarian d/b/a Michael Rossi Carpet Co., Wyandotte, Michi- gan, his agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in said recommended Order. DECISION ABRAHAM H. MAILER, Administrative Law Judge: On June 7, 1973, the Regional Director for Region 7 of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, issued on behalf of the General Counsel a complaint against Murray Bagdasarian d/b/a Michael Rossi Carpet Co., herein called the Respondent.) Briefly, the complaint alleged as follows: That the Union is the exclusive representative for the purposes of collective bargaining of all the employees of the Respondent in an appropriate unit ; that on or about May 23, 1972, the Respondent and the Union executed a collective-bargaining agreement; that said collective -bargaining agreement provides, inter aliq that the Respondent should contribute certain sums of money to four funds, viz, insurance fund, vacation fund, pension fund, and apprenticeship fund, which funds are administered by a board of trustees composed of an equal number of representatives of the Union and of the Carpet, I Said complaint was issued upon a charge filed on April 19, 1973, by Detroit Resilient Floor Decorators Local Union No. 2265, United Linoleum and Resilient Floor Industry Employers Associ- ation ; that. on or about February 20, 1973, the board of trustees determined to audit completely the books of the Respondent . pursuant to the provisions of the collective- bargaining agreement to determine whether the Respon- dent had complied with the fringe benefit fund provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement ; that the informa- tion produced by Respondent at said audit was insufficient to determine whether there had been complete compliance with the requirements of the contract relating to said funds; that on or about March 28 , 1973, the board of trustees requested that the Respondent make available certain of its books and records for inspection by its designated certified public accountant ; and that the Respondent has. failed and refused to permit the certified public accountant to make a complete audit of its books and records, and/or to make available the ' information requested, in violation of Section 8(a)(l) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. $ 151, et seq.), herein called the Act. In its duly filed amended answer, the Respondent denied any violations of the Act and asserted affirmatively that the collective- bargaining agreement establishes that only minimum rates and minimum contributions are required and that the Respondent has furnished all the information establishing that it is meeting the minimum rates and contributions as required by the contract. ` Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held before me at Detroit , Michigan, on July 19, 1973. All parties were represented at the hearing and were afforded full opportu- nity to be heard, to introduce relevant evidence, to present oral argument, and to file briefs -with me . Briefs were filed by all parties on August 13, 1973. Upon consideration of the entire record and the briefs, and upon my observation of each of the witnesses , I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT At all times material herein , the Respondent has maintained its principal office and place of business at 4072 13th Street, Wyandotte, Michigan . Said place of business is the only facility involved in the instant proceedi>g. The Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, engaged in the business of installing carpet, carpet padding, resilient floor tile, linoleum and related floor coverings, and related products for and on behalf of various carpet and floor covering retailers at the locations of the customers of said retailers. During the year ending December 31, 1972, which period is representative of its operations during all times material herein, the Respondent , in the course and conduct of its business operations, performed carpet and other installation serv- ices valued in excess of $ 160 ,000, of which services valued in excess of $50,000 were performed for Vogue Carpet Mills, Inc . During the year ending December 31, 1972, which period is representative of its operations during all times material herein , Vogue Carpet Mills, Inc., in the course and conduct of its business operations sold and Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America . AFL-CIO, herein called the Union. 208 NLRB No. 116 MICHAEL ROSSI CARPET CO. distributed to its customers from its stores located in the State of Michigan carpet and other related floor coverings valued in excess of $500 ,000. During the same period, Vogue Carpet Mills, Inc., in the course and conduct of its business operations , purchased and caused to be transport- ed and delivered to its Michigan locations carpet , carpet padding and other related floor coverings valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points located outside the State of Michigan, which products were 'subsequently installed by the Respondent on behalf of Vogue Carpet Mills, Inc., at the locations of the customers of Vogue Carpet Mills, Inc. Accordingly, I find and conclude that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within - the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Board to assert jurisdiction here. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Detroit Resilient Floor Decorators Local Union No. 2265, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ISSUES Whether Respondent's refusal to permit a complete audit of its books and records under the terms of the collective- bargaining agreement constituted a violation of Section 8(axl) and (5) of the Act. IV. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Collective-Bargaining Agreement On May 23, 1972, the Respondent entered into a collective-bargaining agreement with the Union as the exclusive ' bargaining representative of Respondent's em- ployees in the following appropriate unit : All employees engaged : in the cutting and/or forming of all materials in preparation for installing on floors , walls and ceilings; the installation of all resilient floor, wall and ceiling materials to include all carpet, cork, linoleum, rubber, asphalt, vinyl, seamless floors and all other similar materials in sheet, interlocking, liquid or tile form ; the installation of all artificial turf; the installation , cutting, and/or fitting of carpets , installation of padding and all preformed resilient floor coverings; the installation of all devices for the attachment of floor, wall and ceiling coverings; track sewing of carpets ; drilling of holes for sockets and pins, putting in dowels and slats; the installation of all underlayments, sealants in preparation of floors , walls and ceilings, the unloading and handling of all materials to be installed, and the removal of all materials in preparing floors, exclusive of all office clerical employees , guards and supervisors as defined by the Act. The contract provides , inter alia, for the establishment of four funds which are to be administered jointly by the Union and the Industry : An insurance fund, a vacation "fund, a pension fund, and a joint apprenticeship fund. The Respondent is required to contribute to these funds as follows: ARTICLE III 749 Paragraph 1. The Employer shall contribute into the Resilient Floor Decorators Insurance Fund for all employees covered under this Agreement the sum of forty-five (45) cents per hour for each hour worked. On and after May 1, 1973 the above sum shall be increased to fifty (50) cents per hour . Such contribution shall be -paid entirely by themployer and shall not be included in the Employees ' taxable income. Paragraph 2. The Employer shall contribute into the Resilient Floor Decorators Vacation Fund for all employees covered under this Agreement an amount equal to seven (7%) percent of the hourly earnings. On and after November 1, 1972 the above amount shall be increased to eight (8%) percent of the -hourly earnings. Total actual. wages, including overtime, shall be the basis upon which the percentage shall be computed, and the payments to the Vacation Fund shall be in addition thereto. For Income Tax purposes a payment made on behalf of an Employee to the Fund shall be included in gross wages. Paragraph 3. The Employer shall contribute into the Resilient Floor Decorators Pension Fund for all employees covered under this Agreement an amount equal to five. (5%) percent of gross earnings. On and after May 1, 1973 the above amount. shall be increased to six (6%) percent of gross earnings. Such contrib- utions shall be paid entirely by the Employer and shall not be included in the Employees' taxable income. Paragraph 4. The Employer shall contribute into the Resilient Floor Decorators Joint Apprenticeship Fund for all employees covered under this agreement in the . sum of three (3) cents per hour for each regular hour worked . Such contributions shall be paid ' entirely by the Employer and shall not be included in the Employees' taxable income . The Joint Apprenticeship Committee shall review this program when agreed upon to make necessary monetary adjustments if required. Paragraph 11. Each Employer shall upon request provide the Trustees of the Funds copies of the Employers [sic] books and records showing the names of all individuals covered under this Agreement, hours worked, and amount of payments to such individuals. Each Employer hereby authorizes and empowers a Certified Public Accountant selected by the Trustees of any said Fund to have access to its books and records in order to inspect them for the sole purpose of determining whether or not said Employer has com- plied with the provisions relating to contributions to the Funds . In the event the audit reveals a deficiency in contributions to any of the said Funds of ten (10%) percent or more of the contributions actually made, the Employer shall bear the cost of the audit. 750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Article II of the collective-bargaining agreement deals makes reference also to the contributions to the aforesaid with the minimum rates of wages for the employees and funds. The pertinent provisions of article II are as follows: EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 1, 1972 * These items only , subject to Federal Withholding and F.I.C.A. MECHANICS *Base Wage - ----- ------ -- $ 7.56 *Vacation --- 8 percent of Base Wage (Funded ) --------------- .--__------ .60 Pension -- 5% of Base Wage and Vacation (Funded ) .41 Insurance ----$ .45 (Funded) ---------------------------- .45 GROSS WAGES -- ------ $ 9.02 APPRENTICES EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 1, 1972 CLASSIFICATION PRECE:NT MECH . RATE *BASE WAGE *VAC. 8% PEN. 5% INS. 45c GROSS WAGES First 6 Months 54 $4.08 .33 .22 .45 $5.08 Second 6 i tonths 59 4.46 .36 .24 .45 5.51 Third.64onths 64 4.84 .39 .26 .45 5.94 Fourth 6 Months 69 5.22 .42 .28 .45 6.37 Fifth 6 Months 74 5.59 .45 .30 .45 6.79 Sixth 6 Months 79 5.97 .48 .32 .45 7.22 Seventh 6 Months 84 6.35 .51 .34 .45 7.65 Eighth 6 Months 89 6.73 .54 .36 .45 8.08 MICHAEL ROSSI CARPET CO. 751 The minimum rate of wages for Mechanics and Apprentices shall be defined as follows: EFFECTIVE MAY 1, 1973 * These items only, subject to Federal Withholding and F.I.C.A. -01 MECHANICS *Base Wage - --- ..^-----_____ Mf..----- $7.70 *Vacation -8% of Base Wage (Funded) ------------------ .62 Pension --- 6% of Base Wage and Vacation (Funded ) .50 Insurance -$ .50 (Funded) - ------ .50 GRASS WAGES ------ -- $9.32 APPRENTICES EFFECTIVE HAY 1, 1973 CLASSIFICATION PERCENT MECH. RATE *BASE WAGE *VAC. 8% PEN 6% INS. 50rl% GROSS WAGES First 6-Months 54 $4.16 .33 .27 .50 $5.26 Second 6 ITonths 59 4.54 .36 .29 .50 5.69 Third 6 Months 64 4.93 .39 .32 .50 6.14 Fourth 6 Months 69 5.31 .42 .34 .50 6.57 Fifth 6 Months 74 5.70 .46 .37 .50 7.03 Sixth 6 z1onths 79 6.08 .49 .39 .50 7.46 Seventh 6 Months 84 6.47 .52 .42 .50 7.91 Eighth 6 Aonths 89 6.85 .55 .44 .50 8.34 752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B. Respondent 's Wage Structure Respondent's employees are paid an hourly wage as set forth in the collective -bargaining agreement . Respondent pays his employees for the total number of hours worked per week by check bearing at, the top the imprint "Michael Rossi Carpets" and signed "Murray Bagdasarian." In addition, Respondent gives the employees who are entitled thereto an additional check representing a bonus for the amount of production achieved by such employees during the week . These checks bear at the top the imprint "Murray Bagdasarian" and are signed "Murray Bagdasari- an." These bonuses are paid weekly, and "quite a few times" the bonus exceeds the employee 's weekly wages. Thus, on March 6 , 1973, employee Alexander Johnson received two checks : One in the sum of $ 181.13, drawn on the account of Michael Rossi Carpets, and another in the sum of $95 , representing a bonus , drawn on the account of Murray Bagdasarian . On March 20 , 1973, Johnson received a check in the sum of $181 . 13 drawn on the account of Michael Rossi Carpets and another in the sum of $376 , representing a bonus , drawn on the - account of Murray Bagdasarian. C. Events Leading to the Instant Litigation In February 1973, Thomas Suarez , business representa- tive of the Union and -a trustee and secretary of the four fringe benefit funds, became suspicious, based upon conversations with union members who had applied for employment at the Respondent, that the Respondent paid its employees on an other than a per -hour basis . Pursuant to the provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement, Suarez arranged for Ralph Bovitz, certified public accoun- tant of the funds, to make an audit of the Respondent's business to be compared with Respondent 's reports to the funds. C.P.A. Bovitz made the audit and concluded that there was something missing from Respondent 's recorded labor cost, possibly bonuses . When C.P.A. Bovitz made the audit, Respondent did not reveal to him that there were bonus or incentive payments made to the employees, paid out of the separate checking account under the name of "Murray Bagdasarian ," nor did the Respondent make the records of that checking account available to him. Following this audit, the Union 's attorneys by letter dated March 28, made demand upon the Respondent "to supply auditors for the Funds with ledger cards and copies of all checks issued from the personal account of Murray Bagdasarian , or accounts under his direction and control to every person involved in installation work ." To this, the Respondent replied that he had complied with all the provisions of the collective-bargaining contract and had 2 Collyer Insulated Wire, A Gulf and Western Systems Co., 192 NLRB 837. 3 In this connection, it may be noted that at the hearing , the Respondent contended that the instant proceeding was inappropriate , that the Charging made all contributions required by the contract. The Union thereupon filed a charge leading to the issuance of the complaint in the instant case. D. Contentions of the Parties I The General Counsel and the Charging Party contend that the information sought by the Union is presumptively relevant and necessary to the Union 's duties in administer- ing the contract ; i.e., to determine whether the Respondent has complied with the provisions relating to contributions to the various - funds. The Respondent contends, as set. forth in his letter to the Union's attorneys, that he has fully complied with the collective-bargaining agreement in this respect . In support of this contention, the Respondent points to the provisions of article II, set forth above, which states the minimum hourly wage rates and specific numerical amounts (in cents per hour) to be contributed by the Respondent for each hour worked . The Respondent recognizes that article III of the collective-bargaining agreement provides that, in the case of the vacation fund, the Respondent is required to contribute a percentage of the hourly earnings (rather than cents per hour) and provides further that "[t]otal actual wages, including overtime, shall be the basis upon which the percentage shall be computed . . ." and in the case of the pension fund, provides also for a percentage "of gross earnings." Respondent argues, however, that " article II governs because it "has priority in the contract ." Respondent argues further that there is no requirement in the contract that payment of contributions to the funds be based on bonuses that in the case of the vacation fund, the provision that "[t total actual wages, including overtime shall be the basis upon which the percentage shall be computed" merely means that the percentage shall be paid both on straight-time and overtime . With regard to the provision in article III that the Respondent shall pay a percentage of "gross earnings" into the pension fund , the Respondent argues that the parties have defined the term "gross earnings" in article II which uses the term "gross wages" when it set forth the total of the hourly wage plus numerical cents-per-hour contributions to the various funds. E. Conclusions At the hearing, I noted that the collective-bargaining agreement contained provisions for grievance and arbitra- tion. Accordingly , I invited the views of the parties as to whether under the Board's Collyer doctrine,2 the issues herein should be deferred to arbitration. In their briefs, each of the parties for different reasons vigorously opposes deferral to arbitration .3 Accordingly, it is unnecessary to Party should seek its remedy through litigation in the courts or by arbitration . As indicated above , on brief the Respondent has changed his position and now opposes deferral to arbitration. MICHAEL ROSSI CARPET CO. 753 consider whether such deferral is appropriate . Salt River Valley Water Users Association, 204 NLRB No. 26, In. 1; MacDonald Engineering Co., 202 NLRB 748; A & S Asphalt Corporation, 196 NLRB 236; Union Electric Company, 196 NLRB 830. As noted above, it is Respondent's contention that, under Respondent's interpretation of the collective-bar- gaining agreement, the records which the Union seeks are not relevant . Of necessity, to reach this conclusion, the Board would have to make a preliminary determination that the Respondent's interpretation of the collective- bargaining agreement is correct. Contrary to Respondent's position, the Supreme Court's holding in N.LR.B. v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967), makes it clear that the determination whether the Board should order the Respon- dent to make these records available to the Union does not require a preliminary interpretation of the collective- bargaining agreement. In that case, the issue was whether the employer had the obligation to furnish information which would allow the union to decide whether to process a grievance . As noted by the court, "[t ]he Board found that the information requested was `necessary in order to enable the Union to evaluate intelligently the grievances filed' and pointed out that the agreement contained no 'clause by which the Union waives its statutory right to such information.' "4 The Supreme Court said at 435-436: Board in this case in no way threatens the power which the parties have given the arbitrator to make binding interpretations of the labor . agreement. [Footnote omitted.] In the instant case , the records sought by the Union are not only presumptively relevant , but the collective-bargain- ing agreement specifically provides that the Union is entitled to audit the'Respondent's records to determine whether he has made the contributions required by the agreement . By requiring the Respondent to produce such records, the Board does not make a determination that the Respondent is required to make contributions based upon the incentive bonuses which he pays his employees. It merely enables the Union to determine whether and to what extent, if any, it may desire to process a grievance against the Respondent and proceed to arbitration under the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement or avail itself of any other remedy to which it deems itself entitled. Accordingly , I find and conclude that the Respondent was remiss in performing his statutory duties when he refused to furnish the information requested by the Union, and by such conduct the Respondent has failed and refused to bargain with the Union , in violation of Section 8(aX5) and (1) of the Act. V. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE There can be no question of the general obligation of an employer to provide information that is needed by the bargaining representative for the proper perform- ance of its duties. . ... The only real issue in this case, therefore, is whether the Board must await an arbitra- tor's determination of the relevancy of the requested information before it can enforce the union 's statutory rights under § 8(aX5). The Supreme Court held: For when it [the Board] ordered the employer to furnish the requested information to the union, the Board was not making a binding construction of the labor contract. It was only acting upon the probability that the desired information was relevant , and that it would be of use to the union in carrying out its statutory duties and responsibilities. This discovery- type standard decided nothing about the merits of the union's contractual claims. When the Respondent furnishes the requested information, it may appear that no subcontracting or work transfer has occurred, and, accordingly, that the grievances filed are without merit. On the other hand, even if it appears that such activities have taken place, an arbitrator might uphold the respondent 's contention that no breach of the agree- ment occurred . . . . Such conclusions would clearly not be precluded by the Board 's threshold determina- tion concerning the potential relevance of the requested information . Thus, the assertion of jurisdiction by the The activities of the Respondent set forth in section IV, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent set forth in . section I , above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce. and the free flow thereof. VI. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and. (1) of the Act, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that by refusing to furnish the Union with information concerning the payment of incentive bonuses, Respondent refused to bargain collectively with. ,Detroit Resilient Floor Decorators Local Union No. 2265, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America; AFL-CIO, and thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees, I shall recommend that the Respondent be ordered to furnish the Union with ledger cards and copies of, all checks issued to all, persons employed by the .Respondent in the unit set forth above, irrespective of whether said checks or other payments came from the personal account of the Respondent, or any other checking account under the control of the Respondent. 4 385 U .S. at 435. 754 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 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 unit set forth in section IV, above , of this Decision, constitutes an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. The Union has been at all times material herein the exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. By refusing to furnish the Union with information concerning the payment of incentive bonuses to Respon- dent's employees in the appropriate unit set forth above, the Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Union in violation of Section 8(aX5) of the Act, and thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices proscribed by Section 8(aXl) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) 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: ORDER6 Respondent, Murray Bagdasarian d/b/a Michael Rossi Carpet Co., his agents , successors , and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Detroit Resi- lient Floor Decorators Local Union No. 2265, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees in an appropriate unit by refusing to furnish to it or its agents information concerning the payment of incentive bonuses to its employees in the appropriate unit. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre- sentatives of their own choosing , and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities , except to the extent that such right is affected by the proviso to Section 8(aX3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, furnish to Detroit Resilient Floor Decorators Local Union No. 2265, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, or its agents , ledger cards and copies of all checks issued to all persons employed by the Respondent in the appropriate unit, irrespective of whether such checks or other payments came from the personal account of the Respondent, or any other checking account under the control of the Respon- dent. (b) Post at his plant in Wyandotte, Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix.- 7 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being duly signed by the Respondent, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by him for 60 consecutive days thereafter , in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices aft not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 6 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 .46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings, conclusions, and recommendations , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec . 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes. r In the event that the Board 's 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 be changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." APPENDIX NOTICE To EmpLoYEEs POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government I WILL NOT refuse to furnish to Detroit Resilient Floor Decorators Local Union No. 2265, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, information concerning the payment of incentive bonuses to my employees. I WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce my employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization , to form, join, or assist any labor organization , to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any and all such activities , except to the extent that such right is affected by the proviso to Section 8(aX3) of the Act. I WILL, upon request, furnish to Detroit Resilient Floor Decorators Local Union No. 2265, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, or its agents, ledger cards and copies of all checks issued to all persons employed by me in the appropriate unit, irrespective of whether such checks or other payments came from my personal account, or any other checking account under my control. MURRAY BAGDASARIAN D/B/A MICHAEL Rossi CARPET Co. (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) MICHAEL ROSSI CARPET CO. 755 This is an official notice and must not be defaced by ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be anyone. directed to the Board's Office, 500 Brook Building, 1249 This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan 48226, Tele- from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, phone 313-226-3200. or covered by any other material . Any questions concern-