RTP Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 11, 2001

334 N.L.R.B. 466 (N.L.R.B. 2001)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 466
Miller Waste Mills, Inc., d/b/a RTP Company and
International Union, United Automobile, Aero-
space & Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, UAW. Case 18–CA–14768
July 11, 2001
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS LIEBMAN, TRUESDALE, AND
WALSH
On September 22, 1998, Administrative Law Judge
Arthur J. Amchan issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, the
General Counsel filed cross-exceptions and a supporting
brief, each filed answering briefs, and the Respondent
filed a reply 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 briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions2 as
modified and more fully explained below, and to adopt
the recommended Order as modified and set forth in full
below.3
The judge found, inter alia, that the Respondent unlaw-
fully withdrew recognition from the Union. For the rea-
sons explained below, we agree with the judge.
Background
The Respondent manufactures thermo plastic com-
pound at its facility in Winona, Minnesota. Local 2340,
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace &
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW (the
Union) became the collective-bargaining representative
of the Respondent’s production and maintenance em-
ployees pursuant to an affiliation vote held on February
11, 1996.4 On February 20, 1997, the Board ordered the
Respondent to recognize and bargain with the Union.5

1 The judge found, citing Bethlehem Steel Co., 136 NLRB 1500
(1962), enf. denied on other grounds 320 F.2d 615 (3d Cir. 1963), that
the Respondent did not violate the Act by ceasing to deduct union dues
from employees’ paychecks. There are no exceptions to this finding.
The Respondent challenges the validity of the complaint, issued on
May 21, 1998, while Frederick Feinstein was Acting General Counsel,
on the ground that Feinstein’s appointment was illegal. On October 22,
1998, former President Clinton, pursuant to his constitutional power to
make recess appointments, appointed Feinstein General Counsel. In
that capacity, on November 5, 1998, Feinstein expressly ratified the
Regional Director’s issuance of the complaint in this case. In light of
that action, the Respondent’s argument is moot. See Federal Election
Commission v. Legi Tech, Inc., 75 F.3d 704 (D.C. Cir. 1996), and
Doolin Savings Bank v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 129 F.3d 203,
212–214 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
2 Conclusion of Law 5 is modified to reflect that the Respondent’s
conduct described therein also violated Sec. 8(a)(5). Conclusion of
Law 6 is modified to reflect that the Respondent’s conduct described
therein violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1).
3 We find it unnecessary to pass on the judge’s dismissal of the
8(a)(5) surface bargaining allegation. The finding of such an additional
violation would be cumulative and would not affect the remedy.
We shall modify the recommended Order to reflect the additional
8(a)(5) violations we find here, as well as violations the judge found
but inadvertently omitted from the recommended Order.
The parties commenced bargaining on August 26,
1997. They met seven times between that date and Feb-
ruary 26, 1998, at which time the Respondent withdrew
recognition from the Union.
At the August 26, 1997 session, the Union proposed,
inter alia, that the Respondent grant annual wage in-
creases, improve health insurance benefits, and decrease
employee costs for health insurance. The Respondent
countered with a proposed wage freeze for 1997 and
1998, and agreed to discuss changes in health insurance
benefits with the understanding that any increased costs
would be paid by employees.
The Respondent’s practice was to grant annual wage
increases in December or January of each year. At the
December 11, 1997 meeting, the Union stated that it
would not oppose a wage increase for unit employees.
The Union stated it would not file an unfair labor prac-
tice charge if the Respondent granted employees the an-
nual wage increase that the Respondent had historically
provided around the beginning of each year. The Union
again requested that the Respondent improve health in-
surance benefits. The Respondent did not commit to a
wage increase, but did agree that if changes were made to
health insurance benefits, there would be no “net loss” to
employees.
On January 2, 1998,6 the Respondent sent a letter to
unit employees, stating, in pertinent part

As you know, negotiations with the UAW have
been ongoing for a long time but we are still a long
way from settlement. A Federal mediator has been
involved in the last three meetings but there has been
little progress.
. . . .
During [the] December 11 meeting, the UAW
Union Committee stated they would allow RTP to
give the employees an increase in pay and to de-
crease insurance costs. . . . You will recall when
RTP raised wages last year, the UAW filed an unfair
labor practice charge against us.
. . . .
We appreciate the need for increased wages and
decreased insurance costs, but we cannot handle
4 The Winona Free Union had previously represented the unit em-
ployees.
5 RTP Co., 323 NLRB 15.
6 All subsequent dates are in 1998 unless indicated otherwise.
334 NLRB No. 69
RTP CO. 467
these things piecemeal. Wages and insurance are
only part of the complete economic package, which
also includes . . . other issues which we’ve always
dealt with at the same time.
. . . .
This is a sad occasion for all of us as this marks
the first time in RTP’s long history we won’t be giv-
ing you a wage increase at this time. Please under-
stand this is not the way we do business. We are
continually exploring ways to ensure that neither our
employees nor RTP are damaged any further by this
fiasco.

On January 12, the Union reminded the Respondent of
its understanding that “the raise would be given if there
were no unfair labor practice charges filed.” The Union
stated that it would file a charge if the Respondent did
not retract its January 2 letter and give the employees a
wage increase “as [the Respondent has] always done in
the past.”
On January 15, the Respondent received an employee
petition requesting that the Respondent “grant us a fair
and decent wage increase and better insurance for 1998.”
In a cover letter, the employees who signed the petition
stated that the petition was not connected with the Union:
“It is simply a request from your loyal employees.”
On January 16, the Respondent wrote to its “loyal em-
ployees” that, in response to their petition and
“[r]egardless of the UAW and the NLRB and all of those
problems, we are going to do what you asked,” and that
it was granting them a 51-cent-per-hour wage increase
effective January 12.7 In addition, the Respondent stated
that it hoped it could reduce the cost for health insurance,
and would get back to employees “shortly.”
As promised, the Respondent did get back to its em-
ployees. On February 13, the Respondent told employ-
ees that the Respondent was reducing their insurance
costs. The Respondent also reminded employees that it
had just increased their wages.
On February 25, the Respondent received notice that a
majority of employees had signed a petition stating that
they no longer wanted to be represented by the Union.
At the February 26 negotiating session, the Respondent
informed the Union that, based on the employee petition,
the Respondent would no longer recognize and bargain
with the Union. After withdrawing recognition from the
Union, the Respondent refused to comply with the Un-
ion’s information requests, refused to allow the Union to
participate in the grievance process or to allow an em-

7 This was the largest across-the-board wage increase the Respon-
dent had granted to employees in at least 38 years.
ployee to take time off for union business, and engaged
in unilateral dealings with unit employees.8
Discussion
1. We agree with the judge that the Respondent’s
January 2 letter to employees misrepresented the Union’s
bargaining positions and blamed the Union for prevent-
ing the employees from receiving their customary annual
wage increase. As the judge observed, “It is not surpris-
ing that employees would become alienated from a Un-
ion which they believed had prevented a wage increase.”
Thus, as the judge found, the letter would tend to inter-
fere with the exercise of Section 7 rights in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.9
We also find, as explained below, that the Respon-
dent’s January 16 and February 13 letters informing em-
ployees of improved wages and benefits constituted di-
rect dealing with employees in violation of Section
8(a)(5) of the Act.
The Respondent’s January 16 letter informed employ-
ees that the Respondent was going to “do what you
asked” and grant a wage increase “[r]egardless of” the
Union. The Respondent’s February 13 letter announced
a reduction in employee health insurance premium costs.
It is undisputed that the Respondent did not consult with
the Union before sending the letters to its employees in
response to the January 15 “loyal employee” petition.
The Respondent’s conduct in bypassing the Union when
it sent the January 16 and February 13 letters regarding
working conditions constitutes direct dealing with em-
ployees in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.10
We agree with the judge’s finding that the Union
waived its right to bargain over granting the wage in-
crease and reducing employee insurance premiums.
Nevertheless, the Respondent had an obligation to con-
tinue dealing with its employees through their collective-
bargaining representative. As the Board explained in
Allied-Signal, 307 NLRB 752, 754 (1992), a finding that
a union waived its bargaining rights so as to permit uni-
lateral action by an employer cannot be equated with “a
finding that the Union also agreed that the Respondent
8 The Respondent informed its employees that it was reviewing its
medical, 401(k), vacation, and other benefits; implemented a superior
attendance incentive program; and told employees of the availability of
health insurance coverage through a new insurance carrier.
9 Hillhaven Rehabilitation Center, 325 NLRB 202, 220 (1997), enf.
in relevant part mem. 178 F.2d 1296 (6th Cir. 1999).
10 See Basic Metal & Salvage Co., 322 NLRB 462, 465–466 (1996);
Detroit Edison Co., 310 NLRB 564, 565 (1993); and Bueter Bakery
Corp., 223 NLRB 888, 890 (1976). See also Modern Merchandising,
284 NLRB 1377, 1379 (1987), where the Board found that the em-
ployer engaged in unlawful direct dealing when it sent a letter to em-
ployees regarding workplace improvements.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 468
could deal with employees as if the Respondent’s work
force had no bargaining representative. Direct dealing
with employees goes beyond mere unilateral action.”
Here, there is no evidence that the Union waived its dis-
tinct right to object to direct dealing by the Respondent.
In sum, the Respondent’s conduct in ignoring the Un-
ion and dealing directly with employees “is inconsistent
with the [Respondent]’s statutory bargaining obligation,
tends to undermine the status of the bargaining agent,
and interferes with employees’ Section 7 rights.”11
2. Unit employees acted quickly in response to the
Respondent’s direct dealing: By February 25, a majority
of employees had signed a petition stating that they no
longer wished the Union to represent them. The Re-
spondent reacted quickly in response to the petition: On
February 26, the Respondent informed the Union that it
would no longer recognize and bargain with it.
The judge found that the Respondent was not entitled
to withdraw recognition and cease bargaining with the
Union. In adopting the judge’s finding that the Respon-
dent violated Section 8(a)(5) by withdrawing recognition
from the Union, we rely solely on the fact that the peti-
tion on which the Respondent relies was tainted by the
Respondent’s unfair labor practices.
The Board has long held that an employer may not
withdraw recognition from a union while there are unre-
medied unfair labor practices tending to cause employees
to become disaffected from the union. Olson Bodies,
206 NLRB 779, 780 (1973). As one court has stated, a
“company may not avoid the duty to bargain by a loss of
majority status caused by its own unfair labor practices.”
NLRB v. Williams Enterprises, 50 F.3d 1280, 1288 (4th
Cir. 1995).12
The question, then, is one of causation. In cases in-
volving unfair labor practices other than a general refusal
to bargain, the Board has identified several factors as
relevant to determining whether a causal relationship
exists between the unremedied unfair labor practices and
the subsequent expression of employee disaffection with
an incumbent union. These factors include the follow-
ing: (1) the length of time between the unfair labor prac-

11 Royal Motor Sales, 329 NLRB 760, 761 (1999), enfd. 2001 WL
59043 (D.C. Cir. 2001), citing Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. NLRB, 321
U.S. 678, 683–684 (1944).
12 On March 29, 2001, the Board issued Levitz Furniture Co. of the
Pacific, 333 NLRB 717, in which it “reconsider[ed] whether, and under
what circumstances, an employer may lawfully withdraw recognition
unilaterally from an incumbent union.” Levitz, however, has no bearing
on our decision today because Levitz expressly limited its analysis “to
cases where there have been no unfair labor practices committed that
tend to undermine employees’ support for unions.” Id. at fn. 1. In
addition, the Board held in Levitz that its analysis and conclusions in
that case would only be applied prospectively. Id. at 723.
tices and the withdrawal of recognition; (2) the nature of
the violations, including the possibility of a detrimental
or lasting effect on employees; (3) the tendency of the
violations to cause employee disaffection; and (4) the
effect of the unlawful conduct on employees’ morale,
organizational activities, and membership in the union.
Master Slack Corp., 271 NLRB 78, 84 (1984).
If a causal relationship is found between unfair labor
practices and the loss of employee support for a union,
the evidence on which an employer has based its with-
drawal of recognition is said to be “tainted,” and the
withdrawal is unlawful. An employer cannot rely on an
expression of disaffection by its employees which is at-
tributable to its own unfair labor practices directed at
undermining support for the union.13
As set forth above, the Respondent committed the fol-
lowing unfair labor practices:

• On January 2, blaming the Union for prevent-
ing a wage increase;
• On January 16, bypassing the Union and deal-
ing directly with unit employees by its letter
granting employees a wage increase;
• On February 13, bypassing the Union and
dealing directly with unit employees by its let-
ter notifying employees of a reduction in their
health insurance costs.

Based on the Master Slack principles, we find a strong
causal connection between these unfair labor practices
and the employee petition on which the Respondent re-
lied in withdrawing recognition from the Union.
With respect to the first Master Slack factor (lapse of
time), the unfair labor practices occurred between Janu-
ary 2 and February 13. The antiunion petition was sub-
mitted to the Respondent within 6 weeks of the January
16 direct dealing letter and within 2 weeks of the Febru-
ary 13 direct dealing letter. Thus, the record shows a
close temporal proximity between the Respondent’s un-
fair labor practices and its withdrawal of recognition.
With respect to the second Master Slack factor (the na-
ture of the conduct), we find that the Respondent’s unfair
labor practices, which were disseminated throughout the
bargaining unit, would reasonably tend to have lasting
effects on employees. As one court has explained, an
employer’s “go[ing] over the head of the [Union] to deal
individually with the employees . . . tend[s] inevitably to
weaken the authority of the [Union] and its ability to
represent the employees in dealing with the Company.”
13 Hearst Corp., 281 NLRB 764 (1986), enfd. 837 F.2d 1088 (4th
Cir. 1988).
RTP CO. 469
Utica-Observer Dispatch v. NLRB, 229 F.2d 575, 577
(2d Cir. 1956). The Respondent’s unfair labor practices
“convey[ed] to employees the notion that they would
receive more . . . without union representation. Such
conduct improperly affects [the] bargaining relation-
ship.” Detroit Edison, supra, 310 NLRB at 566.
We now turn to the final two Master Slack factors,
which focus on the effect of the conduct on protected
employee activities. As the judge stated, the Respon-
dent’s accusation that the Union prevented a wage in-
crease would tend to alienate employees from the Union.
Further, direct dealing, by its very nature, would tend to
undermine employee confidence in the effectiveness of
their collective-bargaining representative by suggesting
that the Respondent alone was the source of wage and
benefit improvements. Taken together, the Respondent’s
conduct in accusing the Union of preventing a wage in-
crease, followed immediately by the Respondent’s direct
dealing regarding wages and other benefits “regardless of
the Union,” is of a character that reasonably tends to
have a negative effect on union membership.
For all these reasons, we find a causal relationship be-
tween the alleged unfair labor practices and the antiunion
petition underlying the Respondent’s withdrawal of rec-
ognition. Thus, the unfair labor practices tainted the em-
ployee petition and the Respondent was not entitled to
rely on the petition as a valid expression of employee
sentiment.
In its exceptions, the Respondent asserts that it did not
rely solely on the employee petition when it withdrew
recognition from the Union, and it cites to a number of
other factors of which it “was already aware” on Febru-
ary 25. These additional factors are listed as items “a”
through “k” in the section of the judge’s decision enti-
tled, “Respondent not entitled to withdraw recognition
from the Union on February 26, 1998.” According to the
Respondent, many of these factors “predated any alleged
unfair labor practices” and constituted valid grounds for
withdrawing recognition from the Union. For the rea-
sons set forth below, we find no merit in the Respon-
dent’s argument.
In analyzing the adequacy of an employer’s defense to
a withdrawal of recognition allegation, the Board will
only examine factors actually “relied on” by the em-
ployer. Holiday Inn of Dayton, 212 NLRB 553 fn. 1,
556 (1974), enfd. 525 F.2d 476 (6th Cir. 1975). Conduct
of which the employer may have been aware, but on
which the employer “did not base” its decision to with-
draw recognition from the Union, is of “no legal signifi-
cance.” Id. See also Orion Corp., 210 NLRB 633, 634
(1974) (Board will only examine those factors on which
the withdrawal decision was based), enfd. 515 F.2d 81
(7th Cir. 1975).
Here, we find, contrary to the Respondent’s conten-
tion, that the February 25 employee petition was the true
cause of the Respondent’s decision to withdraw recogni-
tion from the Union. The record shows that, on February
25, an attorney representing some of the Respondent’s
employees wrote a letter to the Respondent stating that
“a clear majority of the [Respondent’s] employees . . .
has signed a petition” declaring that they no longer
wished the Union to represent them. At the February 26
negotiating session, the Respondent’s counsel, Ed
Bohrer, showed the letter and blank copy of the petition
to the Union and stated that “based upon this document
[the petition], we [the Respondent] were no longer in any
position to bargain with the union.” Bohrer advised the
Union that the Respondent was withdrawing from bar-
gaining “on the basis of this letter and petition.”
It is clear that the employee petition prompted the Re-
spondent’s withdrawal of recognition from the Union.
The Respondent did not withdraw recognition because of
“other factors” of which it was aware. Instead, as the
judge stated, “the Respondent did not feel confident
withdrawing recognition from the Union until it had con-
firmation regarding the withdrawal petition.”
The Respondent’s “other factors” are irrelevant be-
cause the Respondent did not rely on them in withdraw-
ing recognition.14 Inasmuch as the record shows that
none of the “other factors” played any part whatsoever in
the Respondent’s decision, we find that they have no
“legal significance.” Holiday Inn of Dayton, supra.
We find that the Respondent relied solely on the Feb-
ruary 25 employee petition as the basis for its decision to
withdraw recognition from the Union. We also find that
this petition was tainted by the Respondent’s unfair labor
practices. Therefore, we conclude that by withdrawing
recognition from the Union on February 26, and by re-
fusing to bargain with it, the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.15
3. The Respondent excepts to the judge’s finding that
it violated Section 8(a)(2) of the Act by paying Attorney
Michael Bernantz for legal services he provided to em-
ployees who opposed the affiliation of the Winona Free

14 Moreover, even if the Respondent had relied on the “other factors”
in withdrawing recognition, we would find that they are insufficient to
establish a good-faith reasonable uncertainty of the Union’s majority
status within the meaning of Allentown Mack Sales & Service v. NLRB,
522 U.S. 359 (1998).
15 We have not analyzed the Respondent’s withdrawal of recognition
under our recent decision in Lee Lumber & Building Material Corp.,
334 NLRB 396 (2001), because the instant case was not litigated on the
theory that the Respondent had not bargained for a reasonable period of
time after the issuance of the bargaining order in RTP Co., supra.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 470
Union (WFU) with the Union. We find merit in the Re-
spondent’s exceptions and reverse the judge on this is-
sue.
On February 11, 1996, the Respondent’s employees,
who were then represented by the WFU, voted to affiliate
with the Union. The Board found that the affiliation vote
was valid. RTP Co., supra, 323 NLRB 15. Bernantz pro-
vided legal services to a group of WFU members op-
posed to the affiliation. The Respondent paid Bernantz’
legal fees.
By its terms, Section 8(a)(2) provides that it is an un-
fair labor practice for an employer to contribute financial
support to “any labor organization.” Consequently, be-
fore a violation of Section 8(a)(2) can be found, the en-
tity involved must be a statutory “labor organization.”
Here, the record shows that virtually all of the legal ser-
vices were rendered after WFU’s affiliation with the Un-
ion was complete and, accordingly, the alleged “labor
organization,” i.e., WFU, no longer existed.16 Id. at 22.
Substantial evidence is therefore lacking that the Re-
spondent contributed financial support to a “labor or-
ganization” in violation of Section 8(a)(2), and we shall
dismiss this allegation.17
4. We agree with the judge, for the reasons fully set
forth in Caterair International, 322 NLRB 64 (1996),
that an affirmative bargaining order is warranted in this
case as a remedy for the Respondent’s unlawful with-
drawal of recognition from the Union. We adhere to the
view, reaffirmed by the Board in that case, that an af-
firmative bargaining order is “the traditional, appropriate
remedy for an 8(a)(5) refusal to bargain with the lawful
collective-bargaining representative of an appropriate
unit of employees.” Id. at 68.
In several cases, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit has required that the
Board justify, on the facts of each case, the imposition of
such an order. See, e.g., Vincent Industrial Plastics v.
NLRB, 209 F.3d 727 (D.C. Cir. 2000); Lee Lumber &
Bldg. Material v. NLRB, 117 F.3d 1454, 1462 (D.C. Cir.
1997); and Exxel/Atmos v. NLRB, 28 F.3d 1243, 1248
(D.C. Cir. 1994). In the Vincent case, the court summa-

16 An itemized statement from Bernantz is in the record. The state-
ment shows that legal services totaling 1600 billable minutes were
rendered between February 1, 1996, and April 3, 1997. Of that total,
only a de minimis amount (45 minutes or less than 3 percent) repre-
sented services rendered before the affiliation vote on February 11,
1996.
17 Although the Respondent’s payments may have constituted an in-
dependent violation of Sec. 8(a)(1), no such unfair labor practice was
alleged in the complaint. While certain payments by an employer to his
employees or to a representative of his employees are also unlawful
under Sec. 302 of the Taft-Hartley Act, 29 U.S.C. §186, the Board does
not have jurisdiction to enforce this provision.
rized the court’s law as requiring that an affirmative bar-
gaining order “must be justified by a reasoned analysis
that includes an explicit balancing of three considera-
tions: (1) the employees’ §7 rights; (2) whether other
purposes of the Act override the rights of employees to
choose their bargaining representatives; and (3) whether
alternative remedies are adequate to remedy the viola-
tions of the Act.” Id. at 738.
Although we respectfully disagree with the court’s re-
quirement for the reasons set forth in Caterair, we have
examined the particular facts of this case as the court
requires and find that a balancing of the three factors
warrants an affirmative bargaining order.
(1) An affirmative bargaining order in this case vindi-
cates the Section 7 rights of the unit employees who were
denied the benefits of collective bargaining by the em-
ployer’s withdrawal of recognition. At the same time, an
affirmative bargaining order, with its attendant bar to
raising a question concerning the Union’s continuing
majority status for a reasonable time, does not unduly
prejudice the Section 7 rights of employees who may
oppose continued union representation because the dura-
tion of the order is no longer than is reasonably necessary
to remedy the ill effects of the violation.
Moreover, employees have not yet had an opportunity
to assess for themselves, without any undue influence
from the Respondent, the Union’s effectiveness as col-
lective-bargaining representative. The Respondent began
protesting the Union’s representative status immediately
after the February 11, 1996 affiliation election. On Feb-
ruary 20, 1997, the Board ordered the Respondent to
recognize and bargain with the Union. Bargaining com-
menced in late August 1997. After only seven sessions
of Board-ordered bargaining for an initial contract, the
Respondent, starting on January 2, 1998, acted to influ-
ence its employees away from union representation by
blaming the Union for preventing an employee wage
increase and by dealing directly with employees regard-
ing significant terms and conditions of employment. The
Respondent’s efforts resulted in an employee petition
seeking the end of union representation, which the Re-
spondent honored by withdrawing recognition from the
Union on February 26, 1998, and dealing directly with
employees for another 3 months. In light of these events,
it is only by restoring the status quo ante and requiring
the Respondent to bargain with the Union for a reason-
able period of time that employees will be able to fairly
decide for themselves whether they wish to continue to
be represented by the Union or adopt some other ar-
rangement.
(2) The affirmative bargaining order also serves the
policies of the Act by fostering meaningful collective
RTP CO. 471
bargaining and industrial peace. That is, it removes the
Respondent’s incentive to delay bargaining in the hope
of further discouraging support for the Union. It also
ensures that the Union will not be pressured, by the pos-
sibility of a decertification petition, to achieve immediate
results at the bargaining table following the Board’s reso-
lution of its unfair labor practice charges and issuance of
a cease-and-desist order.
(3) A cease-and-desist order, without a temporary de-
certification bar, would be inadequate to remedy the Re-
spondent’s violations because it would permit a decerti-
fication petition to be filed before the Respondent had
afforded the employees a reasonable time to regroup and
bargain through their representative in an effort to reach
a collective-bargaining agreement. Such a result would
be particularly unfair in circumstances such as those
here, where litigation of the Union’s charges took several
years and the Respondent’s unfair labor practice was of a
continuing nature and was likely to have a continuing
effect, thereby tainting any employee disaffection from
the Union arising during that period or immediately
thereafter. We find that these circumstances outweigh
the temporary impact the affirmative bargaining order
will have on the rights of employees who oppose contin-
ued union representation.
For all the foregoing reasons, we find that an affirma-
tive bargaining order with its temporary decertification
bar is necessary to fully remedy the allegations in this
case.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Miller Waste Mills, Inc., d/b/a RTP Com-
pany, Winona, Minnesota, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Misrepresenting to employees positions taken by
the Union and blaming the Union for the Respondent’s
failure to improve benefits or give a wage increase.
(b) When preparing for an unfair labor practice pro-
ceeding, interrogating employees in the presence of su-
pervisors, and inquiring into union activities and discus-
sions that occurred outside of the presence of manage-
ment personnel.
(c) Bypassing the Union and dealing directly with unit
employees by its letters granting a wage increase and
reducing insurance premium costs.
(d) Refusing to provide information relevant and nec-
essary to the Union as the collective-bargaining represen-
tative of unit employees.
(e) Withdrawing recognition from, and refusing to
bargain with, the Union as the exclusive bargaining rep-
resentative of the employees in the appropriate bargain-
ing unit described below.
(f) Informing employees that it would no longer au-
thorize them to take time off for union business.
(g) Bypassing the Union and dealing directly with unit
employees by informing that that it was reviewing its
medical, 401(k), vacation, and other benefits; implement-
ing a superior attendance incentive program; and inform-
ing them of the availability of health insurance coverage
through a different insurance carrier.
(h) Refusing to allow the Union to participate in the
grievance process.
(i) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Recognize and, on request, bargain with the Union
as the exclusive representative of the employees in the
following appropriate unit concerning terms and condi-
tions of employment and, if an understanding is reached,
embody the understanding in a signed agreement:

All production and maintenance employees employed
at the Respondent’s plant in Winona, Minnesota; ex-
cluding office and clerical employees, engineering de-
partment employees, draftsperson, plant clerical em-
ployees, and all guards and supervisors as defined by
the National Labor Relations Act.

(b) Provide the Union with the necessary and relevant
bargaining information it requested on February 16,
1998, and thereafter.
(c) Return to the status quo ante and allow union offi-
cials to conduct union business during scheduled work-
times, and to participate in the grievance process.
(d) On request of the Union, rescind the attendance
program implemented on April 15, 1998.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its Winona, Minnesota facility copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”18 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 18,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,

18 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 Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 472
defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Re-
spondent has gone out of business or closed the facility
involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall du-
plicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice
to all current employees and former employees employed
by the Respondent at any time since January 2, 1998.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, the at-
tached noticed marked “Appendix” shall be read to as-
semblies of all unit members by either the Respondent’s
president or senior vice president/chief executive officer.
(g) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that 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.

Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.

To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected
concerted activities.

WE WILL NOT misrepresent to employees positions
taken by the Union and blame the Union for our failure
to improve benefits or give a wage increase.
WE WILL NOT, if preparing for hearings in unfair la-
bor practice proceedings, interrogate employees in front
of supervisors, or inquire into union activities and dis-
cussions that took place out of the presence of company
management officials.
WE WILL NOT bypass the Union and deal directly
with employees regarding pay, benefits, and other work-
ing conditions.
WE WILL NOT refuse to provide information relevant
and necessary to the Union as the collective-bargaining
representative of unit employees.
WE WILL NOT withdraw recognition from or fail and
refuse to bargain in good faith with Local 2340, Interna-
tional Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America, UAW, as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of our employees in the
following appropriate unit:

All production and maintenance employees employed
at our plant in Winona, Minnesota; excluding office
and clerical employees, engineering department em-
ployees, draftsperson, plant clerical employees, and all
guards and supervisors as defined by the National La-
bor Relations Act.

WE WILL NOT tell employees that they may no
longer take time off for union business.
WE WILL NOT refuse to allow the Union to partici-
pate in the grievance process.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, on request, recognize and bargain with the
Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of our
employees in the above-described appropriate unit with
respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions
of employment and, WE WILL, if an understanding is
reached, embody the understanding in a signed agree-
ment.
WE WILL in a timely fashion furnish the Union with
the information requested on February 16, 1998, and
thereafter.
WE WILL allow union officials to conduct union busi-
ness during scheduled worktime.
WE WILL allow the Union to participate in the griev-
ance process.
WE WILL, on request of the Union, rescind the atten-
dance program we implemented on April 15, 1998.
MILLER WASTE MILLS, INC., D/B/A RTP
COMPANY

A. Marie Simpson, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Paul J. Zech and Lee A. Lastovich, Esqs. (Felhaber, Larson,
Fenlon & Vogt, P.A.), of Minneapolis, Minnesota, for the
Respondent.
Robert D. Metcalf, Esq. (Metcalf, Kaspari, Howard, Engdahl &
Lazarus, P.A.), of Minneapolis, Minnesota, for the Charg-
ing Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ARTHUR J. AMCHAN, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was tried in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on June 16–19 and
July 7 and 8, 1998. The charge was filed March 12, 1998,1 and
the complaint was issued May 21, 1998.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed
by the General Counsel and Respondent, I make the following

1 All dates are in 1997 unless otherwise indicated.
RTP CO. 473
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent (Miller Waste or RTP), a corporation,
manufactures thermoplastic molding compound at its facility in
Winona, Minnesota, where it annually sells and ships goods
valued in excess of $50,000 to points outside of Minnesota. It
also purchases and receives goods valued in excess of $50,000
from points outside of Minnesota at its Winona facility. Re-
spondent admits and I find that it is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act and that the Union, Local 2340 of the UAW, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
On February 20, 1997, the Board found that Respondent had
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) by refusing to recognize and
bargain with the Union, RTP Co., 323 NLRB 15. Following
that decision Respondent bargained with UAW Local 2340
from April 1997 until February 26, 1998, when it withdrew
recognition of the Union as the exclusive bargaining represen-
tative of its employees. The General Counsel alleges that Re-
spondent has violated Section 8(a)(1), (2), and (5) in a number
of respects since the Board’s decision. These allegations in-
clude bad-faith or “surface” bargaining, bypassing the Union
and dealing directly with bargaining unit employees and ren-
dering financial assistance to employees opposed to the Union.

Events Leading up to the 1997 NLRB Decision
To put the instant case in context, it is helpful to restate some
of Judge William L. Schmidt’s factual findings, which were
affirmed by the Board. For some period prior to 1984, RTP
production and maintenance employees were represented by the
International Chemical Workers Union (ICWU). In 1984, a
group of employees successfully moved to decertify the ICWU.
Afterwards the Board conducted a representation election and
certified the Winona Free Union (WFU) formed by these em-
ployees as the bargaining representative. The WFU entered into
several collective-bargaining agreements with Respondent, the
last of which was concluded in February 1994. Judge Schmidt
noted that, “the WFU has had an amicable and nonconfronta-
tional relationship with Respondent, never processing a griev-
ance to arbitration.”
In mid-1995, the executive board of the WFU contacted and
met with George Klingfus, an international representative of the
UAW. At a meeting in December 1995, attended by the six
members of the executive board and five or six other bargain-
ing unit members, it was agreed that a vote should be taken at
the January 1996 meeting on whether to affiliate with the
UAW. On January 22, 1996, the executive board sent a letter
to all bargaining unit employees. This letter announced that a
special meeting of the Union would be held on Sunday, Febru-
ary 11, 1996, at which a secret ballot election would be taken to
determine whether to affiliate with the UAW or remain inde-
pendent. A copy of the letter was also posted in the workplace.
On February 7, the Company sent a letter to all bargaining unit
employees. In the letter Miller Waste opposed affiliation and
warned that it would challenge the legitimacy of the UAW as a
properly certified bargaining agent should affiliation be ap-
proved.
Approximately 130 employees attended the February 11
meeting. At the beginning two anti-UAW employees, Robert
Kashuba and Ron Swartling, confronted Klingfus and vocifer-
ously challenged the legality of the meeting. At the end of the
meeting a secret ballot election was conducted and supervised
by Reverend John Carrier. Seventy nine employees voted for
affiliation and 51 voted against affiliation. Following the elec-
tion three members of the WFU executive board and Klingfus
signed an affiliation agreement.
On March 22, 1996, the UAW issued a charter designating
the WFU as UAW Local 2340. Five of the six WFU officers
and executive board members assumed the same positions with
UAW Local 2340. Respondent refused to recognize the UAW
as the bargaining agent of its employees. Anti-UAW employ-
ees, including Robert Kashuba, Scott Holubar, and Jeff Serwa,2
immediately commenced a campaign to reverse the affiliation
of the WFU with the UAW. During this campaign they regu-
larly shared information and, on occasion, sought advice from
Charles Wunderlich, a vice president of Respondent, who is
principally responsible for its labor relations.
The Board concluded that the UAW has been the bargaining
representative of Respondent’s employees since February 11,
1996. It noted that a successful affiliation vote does not require
a majority vote of the entire bargaining unit membership. The
Board found that employees received adequate notice of the
vote on affiliation and had an adequate opportunity to discuss
and consider the affiliation matter before casting their ballots. It
also concluded that Respondent had failed to meet its burden of
showing that the affiliation did not preserve continuity between
the WFU and Local 2340. Respondent was ordered to recog-
nize and bargain with Local 2340. The remedy portion of the
decision concluded that “Local 2340 is entitled to a reasonable
period in which to bargain with Respondent free from further
interference.”
The Commencement of Negotiations Between Respondent and
the UAW on April 30, 1997
Respondent decided not to appeal the February 1997 Board
decision. On April 3, Chuck Wunderlich and Michael Bernatz,
attorney for at least several members of the anti-UAW faction
within the WFU, discussed the strategy to be followed by the
Company and Bernatz’ clients with respect to the UAW.3 Ber-
natz’ notes of that conversation (GC Exh. 41) read in pertinent
part:4

Option #2
Recognize UAW
Start negotiating in good faith

2 Serwa resigned as secretary treasurer of the WFU after its affilia-
tion with the UAW. He is currently a supervisory/management em-
ployee at Respondent’s Winona plant.
3 Bernatz represented the WFU in contract negotiations with Re-
spondent in 1987, 1990, and 1993.
4 Bernatz testified that these notes may have been written while he
was talking to Wunderlich. I infer that they were transcribed during the
conversation. The last line, for example, appears to be a quotation of
what Wunderlich said to Bernatz.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 474
3-6-10 months- No solution
NLRB will, if new petition
NLRB almost obligated to give petition
There will be a time to get signatures
And demanding election-but not now
“Talking to them in good faith”

Sometime in the early spring of 1997, Respondent’s counsel,
Edward Bohrer, met with UAW International Representative
Thomas Schneider, who was assigned by the Union to conduct
contract negotiations. The Union agreed to withdraw two
pending unfair labor practice charges and the parties agreed to
hold their first meeting on April 30, 1997, in Red Wing, Min-
nesota. This meeting was a cordial “get acquainted” meeting.
The Union presented Respondent with an agenda, which in-
cluded a list of the information it wanted from Miller Waste.
The Union informed Respondent that it wanted to survey its
membership before starting substantive negotiations and the
parties agreed that they would not conduct a letter writing cam-
paign during negotiations without the others’ consent.
By May 8, Miller Waste had provided the Union with all the
information it requested, including a list of employees’ salaries
by name, which the Company had been hesitant to divulge.
Schneider went on a plant tour of the Winona facility during the
same month. In July the parties agreed to hold their first sub-
stantive meeting on August 26. They agreed that the Union
would present its initial proposal at that meeting and that Re-
spondent would present its response on August 29. The General
Counsel does not contend that the 4-month hiatus between the
first and second meetings was the fault of Respondent.
August 26, 1997 Meeting
During this period the Union conducted its survey, tallied the
results, and reviewed the collective-bargaining agreement
signed by the WFU and Miller Waste in February 1994. Re-
spondent authorized Brian Stremcha and Steve Blank to attend
a week-long union conference in early August.5 Just prior to
the August 26 meeting, George Klingfus replaced Thomas
Schneider, who underwent knee surgery, as the UAW’s chief
negotiator. When he attended his first meeting, Klingfus had
not met with bargaining unit employees beforehand. He was
only vaguely familiar with the Union’s proposals and did not
have an understanding of the negotiating team’s priorities.6 He
had reviewed the 1994 WFU contract briefly.
On August 26, Klingfus read the union proposals to the
company negotiators. Specific contract language was not pre-
sented to the company. The Union merely stated, for example,

5 The Union has no complaints about Respondent’s dealings with it
in the grievance process between April 1997 and February 26, 1998. In
one instance the Union praised the conduct of RTP’s representatives.
6 The bargaining unit members of the negotiating team were Brian
Stremcha, president of the Local, Ken Erickson, vice president, and Pat
Berg, secretary-treasurer. Jerry Severson, union recording secretary and
a member of the negotiating team in April, left Respondent voluntarily
sometime in mid-1997. Mark Steuemagel, president of the Union at the
time of the affiliation vote, may also have been a member of the negoti-
ating team at one time. He also voluntarily ceased working for Re-
spondent in 1997. Erickson resigned his positions with the Union in
January or February 1998.
that it wanted a union-security agreement added to the WFU
contract, that it wanted additional floating holidays, that it
wanted wages improved each year of the agreement, that it
wanted improved insurance benefits and reduced employee
health insurance contributions. The Union also proposed a
“five-year step plan to get [wage] rates to pre-January, 1985
date.” The Union’s objective was to eliminate the distinction
between employees hired by Respondent before 1985 (tier I
employees) and those hired after that date (tier II employees).
Tier I employees were paid at a significantly higher base wage
rate.
August 29, 1997 Meeting
Miller Waste presented its response to the union proposal on
August 29. The proposal was read by Edward Bohrer, its chief
negotiator. There was little discussion of the proposals since the
meeting lasted only 30 minutes to an hour. The Company’s
initial proposal deleted union dues deduction, a task it had per-
formed for the WFU. Miller Waste’s rationale for this proposal
was that the UAW “is in a position to handle its own financial
affairs.” The Company also opposed any union-security clause.
The Company asked for the right to establish “non-tradi-
tional” workdays, such as four 10-hour days. It proposed that
employees be required to sign up for overtime in advance,
which was another change from the WFU contract. Miller
Waste asked for the right to cancel the New Year’s Eve,
Christmas Eve, and Good Friday holidays with 30 days’ notice
and with the provision of a substitute day off with pay, or an
extra day’s pay.
Miller Waste’s response to the Union’s request for a reduc-
tion in the probationary period for new hires was an increase in
the period. The parties eventually agreed to maintain the status
quo regarding the probationary period, while giving Respon-
dent a right to extend the period in particular cases after the
Union’s review. Respondent rejected the Union’s request for a
change in company procedures for overtime and transfer. The
Union proposed a job bidding process with more weight given
to seniority than was the case under the WFU contract.
With respect to wages, the Company proposed a wage freeze
in 1997 and 1998, citing its December 1996 4-1/2-percent wage
increase, as justification for the freeze. As to the two-tiered
wage system, the company proposal stated that “it was open to
negotiation of a method to reduce the difference” between the
tiers, but that “it will take much longer than 5 years.” The com-
pany proposal provided that any increase in health insurance
benefits would be paid for by its employees.
The Company agreed to a union request to modify the lan-
guage concerning work breaks to clearly indicate that employ-
ees on each shift were entitled to three 10-minute breaks.7 It
also agreed to update its seniority list regularly and provide it to
the Union.
The September 16 Meeting
Prior to the next scheduled negotiation session on September
16, a union negotiating team member (or members) apparently
told George Klingfus that the company was discriminating
7 Respondent also proposed a provision giving it discretion to re-
quire some or all employees to punch in and out at breaktimes.
RTP CO. 475
against UAW supporters with respect to wages. Respondent
paid a number of employees a wage rate that exceeded the base
wage set forth in its collective-bargaining agreement with the
WFU. Klingfus was also told that there were individuals who
were company supervisors who were in the bargaining unit and
were doing work that should be done by other bargaining unit
members.
Klingfus raised these issues with Respondent’s chief negotia-
tor, Ed Bohrer, in the hallway just prior to the September 16
session. Then when the meeting began, he threatened in an
animated manner, to file unfair labor practice charges regarding
discrimination in merit pay and an incident in which the local
secretary/treasurer, Pat Berg, was pushed down the stairs of a
blender. No such charges were ever filed and the Union has
never established that Respondent discriminated against union
members with regard to merit pay.
Klingfus also demanded that the “supervisors” be removed
from the bargaining unit. Bohrer responded to Klingfus by
asking him to provide a list of the individuals to whom he was
referring.8 This issue consumed a considerable amount of time
at the September 16 meeting and at some later meetings. On
September 16, the Union’s secretary/treasurer, Pat Berg, began
rewriting the WFU collective-bargaining agreement by hand as
a means of presenting desired language changes to Respondent.
After some period of time, Respondent objected to this proce-
dure and the parties agreed that Bohrer’s secretary would type
up tentative agreements after each meeting.
The Union asked for changes to article I of the WFU contract
which excluded laboratory employees from the bargaining unit.
These employees had always been treated as unit members and
indeed, Union President Brian Stremcha and other union mem-
bers worked in these laboratories. Respondent promised that it
would continue to treat laboratory employees as bargaining unit
members, but refused to change the contract language. The
Union accepted the Company’s representations.
The September 19, 1997 Meeting
Some minor agreements were reached at the September 19
bargaining session. Respondent agreed to grant employees
bereavement leave in the event the death of their stepchildren
or stepparents and to count such leave in computing eligibility
for overtime pay. The agreement to include steprelatives, how-
ever, merely conformed to the Respondent’s existing practice.
The Union agreed to the nontraditional workday and the elimi-
nation of the employer-employee task force provided for
in the WFU contract. Respondent refused to budge on its insis-
tence that it would not collect dues for the UAW or allow em-
ployees to bid on promotions and transfers. At the end of the
meeting, Klingfus informed the Company that he would ask
Federal mediator Bruce Danielson to attend the next meeting. A
meeting scheduled for October 14 was cancelled by Klingfus.

8 This dispute concerned some or all of 26 section leaders/managers
or assistant section leaders/managers listed on GC Exh. 47. Five of
these employees were having union dues withheld from their paychecks
in April 1997. These individuals report to one of three production man-
agers or to the second- or third-shift supervisors. The production man-
agers and shift supervisors, who are supervisory/management, report to
Manufacturing Manager Larry Stoltman.
The November 6 and 26, 1997 Meetings
UAW International Representative Thomas Schneider at-
tended the first hour of the November 6 meeting, which was
also attended by Federal mediator Bruce Danielson. Schneider
alleged that the Company was not serious about reaching
agreement and was bargaining in bad faith. Bohrer responded
by accusing the Union for the slow pace and lack of progress in
negotiations.
Some minor agreements were reached such as one regarding
the consistency of language in computing time periods for the
grievance procedure. On November 6, and 26, discussion cen-
tered on three issues: the Company’s proposed right to move
the New Year’s Eve, Christmas Eve, and Good Friday holidays;
the issue of whether certain employees were supervisors and
eligible for bargaining unit overtime work and the Company’s
insistence that an employee have the right to pursue a grievance
without the Union’s blessing. There was no resolution with
regard to any of these matters.9
On the morning of November 26, Respondent presented the
Union with a document entitled “List of supervisors currently
in the bargaining unit [G.C. Exh. 47].” In the meeting the Un-
ion took the position that only 2 of the 26 individuals on the list
were supervisors within the meaning of the NLRA. The Com-
pany argued that these individuals were indistinguishable with
regard to their supervisory status under the Act in that they all
had some degree of authority to discipline employees and make
work assignments. Respondent also argued that it had the right
to have them perform overtime work regardless of whether or
not they were in the bargaining unit.
December 11, 1997 Meeting
On the morning of December 11, 1997, both negotiating
teams caucused separately at the Riverport Inn in Winona. At
one point federal mediator Bruce Danielson entered the room of
the union negotiators and told them that he didn’t think they
would get a collective-bargaining agreement unless they could
show the Company that the Union had the support of the major-
ity of the bargaining unit employees.10 The three union negoti-
9 Curiously, union negotiator Klingfus testified on two occasions
(Tr. 642 and 726) that Respondent dropped its insistence that an indi-
vidual employee be able to pursue a grievance. If this were so, it would
indicate a major concession by Miller Waste. However, the notes of the
company negotiators, Charles, Wunderlich, Ed Bohrer, and Frank Woh-
letz, as well as the testimony of Union President Brian Stremcha, estab-
lish that the Company never compromised on this issue (see, e.g., Exhs.
R-8, R-28, and R-21, pp. 14–15).
10 No factual issue in this case is so hotly contested as the origins of
the suggestion for an election. The company witnesses unanimously
assert that, other than telling them to go to lunch, they didn’t see media-
tor Danielson until the afternoon, when he informed them that the Un-
ion had decided that it wanted to have a representation election. Never-
theless, I find that the election idea was a result of the Union’s discus-
sions with Danielson, who was accurately conveying sentiments ex-
pressed to him by Respondent. I base this finding on the testimony of
Ken Erickson, union vice president until January or February 1998,
who was a member of the union negotiation team. Erickson, who no
longer supports the Union, testified for Respondent. On direct exami-
nation, he supported Respondent’s account. However, on cross-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 476
ating committee members, President Brian Stremcha, Vice
President Kenneth Erickson, and UAW International Represen-
tative George Klingfus, then engaged in a prolonged discussion
of whether they should consent to an NLRB representation
election.
In the afternoon the parties got together and agreed to such
an election, pending approval from Klingfus’ supervisor at the
UAW. The also discussed wages and changes in employee
health insurance benefits. In March 1997, the Union had filed
an unfair labor practice charge because Respondent granted
employees a very large wage increase without giving notice to
the Union, or providing it with an opportunity to bargain. The
Union promised not to file a charge if an increase was granted
for 1998. Klingfus also promised not to use the raise as a means
of getting an even greater wage increase in future negotiations.
Finally, the Union agreed that Respondent could change em-
ployee health insurance benefits so long as the change did not
offset the wage increase to the point of leaving employees with
a net loss in compensation. Contract negotiations were sus-
pended while the election proposal was broached to Klingfus’
superiors.
The UAW Rejects a Representation Election and Files Two
Grievances Regarding Overtime Worked by Supervisors
On December 12, Local Union President Brian Stremcha
filed a grievance with Respondent alleging that on Saturday,
December 6, “[f]orepersons were used to do work regularly
performed by the bargaining unit employees during their regu-
lar work week.” The grievance asked that “the appropriate em-
ployees” be paid for these overtime hours. On December 23,
Stremcha filed an identical grievance with regard to work per-
formed on Sunday, December 21.
Both grievances were declined by Respondent. In addition,
Corporate Vice President Wunderlich had a meeting with the
“bargaining unit supervisors” and told them that the Union
wanted them out of the bargaining unit. He suggested that they
talk to Stremcha about the grievances. Stremcha met with sev-
eral of these individuals at a restaurant and told them that the
Union believed that they were leadmen rather than supervisors.
Respondent’s January 2, 1998 Letter
On December 23, George Klingfus left Ed Bohrer a message
stating that the Union could not agree to a representation elec-
tion. On January 2, Respondent sent its employees a letter
summarizing its negotiations with the UAW (GC Exh. 10).11
The letter reviewed the discussions regarding a representation
election and Klingfus’ message of December 23. It continued
as follows:

Wages and Benefits

During that same December 11th meeting, the UAW
Union Committee stated they would allow RTP to give

examination, he changed his testimony and it is that testimony which I
conclude is closest to the truth.
11 At the April 30 negotiation session Tom Schneider agreed with
company negotiators that their discussions would remain confidential
and that the parties would not engage in letter writing campaigns.
George Klingfus repudiated this agreement on September 16, on ac-
count of Respondent’s alleged discrimination regarding merit pay.
employees an increase in pay and to decrease insurance
costs but no specifics were discussed. You will recall
when RTP raised wages last year, the UAW filed an unfair
labor practice charge against us.

Conclusion

We appreciate the need for increased wages and de-
creased insurance costs, but we cannot handle these things
piecemeal. Wages and insurance are only part of the com-
plete economic package, which also includes vacations,
holidays, overtime and other issues which we've always
dealt with at the same time. We also find it difficult to
trust the UAW after they pulled the rug out from under us
by denying an election. These and other issues must be
resolved simultaneously.
This is a sad occasion for all of us as this marks the
first time in RTP’s long history we won’t be giving you a
wage increase at this time. Please understand this is not the
way we do business. We are continually exploring ways to
ensure that neither our employees nor RTP are damaged
any further by this fiasco.
Thank you very much for your continued patience and
understanding.

/s/ Benjamin A. Miller, President /s/ Hugh L.
Miller, CEO

George Klingfus wrote Respondent’s attorney, Ed Bohrer, on
January 12, 1998, complaining about the Company’s January 2
letter. He said his understanding was that a raise would be
given if no unfair labor practice charges were filed. Klingfus
closed his letter by threatening to file an unfair labor practice
charge unless Respondent retracted the January 2 letter and
gave employees a wage increase.
On January 15, 1998, the Millers were presented with a peti-
tion signed by approximately half the bargaining unit. It asked
that the Millers grant employees a fair and decent wage in-
crease and better insurance benefits for 1998. A cover sheet
given to the Millers states that the petition was “in no way,
shape or form, connected with any organization or business. It
is simply a request from your loyal employees.” One of the
employees who circulated this petition was Scott Holubar, who
had been a leader of the anti-UAW faction in the WFU.
The Millers responded to this letter the next day with a letter
to employees granting them a 51-cent-per-hour wage increase
“regardless of the UAW and the NLRB and all those prob-
lems.” This constitutes the largest across-the-board wage in-
creased given to RTP employees in at least 38 years. The Janu-
ary 16 letter also indicated that Respondent was working on a
reduction in employee health insurance costs. On February 13,
1998, Respondent notified employees of a reduction in their
contribution for health insurance premiums.
On February 13, 1998, Respondent informed the Union that
it would no longer deduct dues or other union fees from em-
ployee paychecks. At some point a meeting was scheduled for
February 26, 1998, to resume collective-bargaining negotia-
tions. About 2 days prior to this meeting, Scott Holubar went to
see Respondent’s vice president, Chuck Wunderlich. Holubar
told Wunderlich that he had a petition, with the signatures of
RTP CO. 477
125 bargaining unit employees, stating that the employees did
not want the UAW representing them. Wunderlich referred
Holubar to Michael Bernatz, formerly the WFU’s attorney.12
Holubar arrived at Bernatz’ office on February 25, with a peti-
tion signed by 129 of the 168 bargaining unit employees and
left it with a secretary.13
Bernatz, who continued to represent Holubar, Robert Ka-
shuba, and other anti-UAW employees14 with regard to their
employment, called Chuck Wunderlich. At some time during
that afternoon, Bernatz also talked with Frank Wohletz, Re-
spondent’s Winona counsel and Paul Zech, a partner of Ed
Bohrer in the Felhaber law firm. He asked their advice in word-
ing a cover letter for the withdrawal petition to assure that it
would be recognized by Respondent and, I assume, the NLRB.
Afterwards, Thomas Gort, an associate in Bematz’ office,
drafted a letter to the Millers stating:

Our office has represented a number of employees of
Miller Waste Mills, Inc. I am writing you to put you on
notice of the following. Our clients have advised us that a
clear majority of the employees of Miller Waste Mills has
signed a petition relating to the employees’ union affilia-
tion.
A blank sample of the petition is attached to this letter
as Exhibit A. Based on information that we have received,
we believe that this letter accurately reflects the nature and
status of that petition, and that we will presently be in pos-
session of the signed original of the petition.

The blank sample declared that the signatories no longer
wanted to be affiliated with the UAW and did not want the
UAW to represent them. Bernatz rushed to deliver the letter to
Respondent prior to the start of the next day’s negotiating ses-
sion, of which he was aware. Gort hand carried the letter to
Chuck Wunderlich in the late afternoon of February 25, 1998.
The Company did not received a copy of the signed petition
until June 1998.
The Events of February 26, 1998
Thomas Schneider was reassigned to the Miller Waste nego-
tiations, replacing Klingfus, prior to February 26. Shortly after
the outset of the negotiating session, Ed Bohrer presented
Schneider, Brian Stremcha, and Pat Berg a copy of the letter
from Gort, with the blank petition. Bohrer informed the Union
that in light of this letter the Company was no longer bargain-
ing with it. Schneider became very angry and made some thinly
veiled threats of violence, apparently directed at Wunderlich.
During or immediately after the meeting, Respondent’s at-
torney, Frank Wohletz, called Mike Bematz. Wohletz asked

12 There is no evidence of Respondent’s involvement with the circu-
lation of the withdrawal petition, or the January petition requesting a
wage increase.
13 The bargaining unit had about 200 employees. Approximately 55
were members of the Union in February 1998. There were about 70
members in April 1997.
14 From Bernatz’ notes I infer that Ernie Fratzke, who was involved
with Holubar in the circulation of the withdrawal petition, was also a
client of Bernatz. Respondent’s attorney, Ed Bohrer, described Bernatz
as “an attorney representing the majority of the employees.” (Tr.
1032.)
Bernatz to retain custody of the signed withdrawal petition. He
also directed Bernatz to send him a statement of the services
Bernatz had rendered to Winona Free Union for which he had
not been paid. Bernatz sent a bill covering his services to the
WFU from February 1, 1996, through his conversation with
Wunderlich on April 3, 1997. The statement covered time spent
talking to employees Scott Holubar, Jeff Serwa, and Bob Ka-
shuba, as well as numerous conversations with Respondent and
its attorneys (GC Exh. 56, attached to the General Counsel’s
brief). Wohletz paid Bernatz the $2,317.55 claimed in the
statement and was reimbursed by Respondent.15
Unilateral Actions after February 26, 1998, Which are Alleged
to be 8(a)(5) Violations
Pursuant to its position that it was not obligated to recognize
and bargain with the Union after February 25, 1998, Respon-
dent failed to comply with a request for information submitted
by Local 2340 President Brian Stremcha on February 16, and
any subsequent UAW information requests. It has also refused
to allow the Union to participate in the grievance process. On
March 23, 1998, it informed Pat Berg that it would no longer
authorize him to take time off for Local 2340 business.
Respondent has also dealt unilaterally with employees in a
number of respects that are alleged as violations by the General
Counsel. On March 19, 1998, Respondent sent its employees a
letter informing them that it no longer recognized the UAW. It
also informed them that the Company was reviewing its medi-
cal, 401(k), vacation, and other benefits. On April 15, 1998, it
unilaterally implemented a superior attendance incentive pro-
gram. RTP also informed its employees of the availability of
health insurance coverage through Blue Cross and Blue Shield
of Minnesota.
Analysis
The General Counsel has not Established that Respondent En-
gaged in Surface Bargaining
In Atlanta Hilton & Tower, 271 NLRB 1600, 1603 (1984),
the Board summarized the obligations of employers and unions
under Section 8(a)(5):

Under Section 8(d) of the Act, an employer and its
employees’ representative are mutually required to “meet
at reasonable times and confer in good faith with respect
to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of em-
ployment . . . but such obligation does not compel either
party to agree to a proposal or require the making of a
concession.” Both the employer and the union have a duty
to negotiate with a “sincere purpose to find a basis of
agreement,” but “the Board cannot force an employer to
make a ‘concession’ on any specific issue or to adopt any
particular position.” The employer is, nonetheless, “obli-
gated to make some reasonable effort in some direction to
compose his differences with the union, if Section 8(a)(5)
is to be read as imposing any substantial obligation at all.”
It is necessary to scrutinize an employer’s overall con-
duct to determine whether it has bargained in good faith.
15 Bernatz testified that he intends to bill for services rendered in
February 1998. He did not indicate who he intends to bill.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 478
“From the context of an employer’s total conduct, it must
be decided whether the employer is lawfully engaging in
hard bargaining to achieve a contract that it considers de-
sirable or is unlawfully endeavoring to frustrate the possi-
bility of arriving at any agreement. A party is entitled to
stand firm on a position if he reasonably believes that it is
fair and proper or that he has sufficient bargaining strength
to force the other party to agree.
. . . .
Although an adamant insistence on a bargaining posi-
tion is not of itself a refusal to bargain in good faith . . .
other conduct has been held to be indicative of a lack of
good faith. Such conduct includes delaying tactics, unrea-
sonable bargaining demands, unilateral changes in manda-
tory subjects of bargaining, efforts to bypass the union,
failure to designate an agent with sufficient bargaining au-
thority, withdrawal of already agreed-upon provisions, and
arbitrary scheduling of meetings.16

On the one hand there are a number of aspects regarding Re-
spondent’s conduct at and away from the bargaining table that
points to a determination not to reach agreement with the Un-
ion, or “surface bargaining.” These include its “brain-storming”
with Bernatz at the outset of the negotiations, its position re-
garding dues-checkoff proposals that were somewhat more
onerous that those in its contract with the WFU and the lack of
any significant concessions to the Union during negotiations.
None of these factors, however, necessarily establishes bad-
faith bargaining, White Cap, Inc., 325 NLRB 1166 (1998).
In NLRB v. J. P. Stevens & Co., 538 F. 2d 1152, 1165 (4th
Cir. 1976), the court observed that “[e]very position on issues
of mandatory bargaining like dues check off, must reflect a
legitimate business purpose, otherwise the company has not
bargained in good faith.” In the instant case I cannot see any
legitimate business purpose in Respondent’s insistence that the
UAW collect its own dues. Similarly, the record belies Respon-
dent’s assertions that it made any significant concessions to the
Union during the negotiations. It claims that it conceded a lot
by agreeing to discuss a graduated elimination of its tiered
wage structure. However, I conclude it conceded nothing be-
cause it did not make any concrete proposal in response to the
Union’s proposed 5-year plan to equalize wages for pre- and
post-1985 hires.
All this being said, I cannot conclude that Respondent en-
gaged in surface bargaining. Had it stuck to all these positions
and even if it had struck to some of them to the point of im-
passe, I might be inclined to find “surface bargaining.” How-
ever, negotiations never progressed far enough to determine
whether Respondent’s proposals were designed to thwart any
agreement, or were merely tools to gain concessions on other
issues. Moreover, the Union was at least as much at fault for
the lack of progress as Respondent.
It is not alleged that Respondent engaged in many of the tell-
a-tale signs of surface bargaining. For instance, the Company
did not arbitrarily schedule and cancel bargaining sessions, or
decline to make its negotiators reasonably available. Indeed, the

16 Case citations from the Board’s decision have been omitted.
lack of haste in starting and conducting substantive negotiations
appears to be as much the responsibility of the Union as it is
Respondent’s. Furthermore, Miller Waste complied with all
information requests submitted by the Union until the February
16, 1998 request by Stremcha.17 Respondent dealt fairly with
the Union in the grievance process and provided union officials
an opportunity to attend to union business up until February 26,
1998.
Respondent can not be saddled with responsibility for the
fact that negotiations were not completed by the end of 1997, or
the predicament in which the Union found itself as a result. The
Union knew that Respondent traditionally raised wages at the
beginning of each year. It was thus on notice that if negotia-
tions were not concluded that the wage increase would be de-
layed unless it waived its right to bargain with respect to the
increase.
Despite this fact, the Union wasted much of the negotiating
sessions on issues that appear to have either had no merit, or
were not well thought out. Most notable in this regard is the
time spent on the allegation of discrimination against union
members with regard to merit pay and the “bargaining unit
supervisor” issue. With regard to the former, there appears to
be absolutely no basis for the assertions made by the Union at
the bargaining sessions. The latter issue seems to be a poorly
articulated concern, never adequately explained either in nego-
tiations or at this hearing.
Union President Stremcha objected to the performance of
overtime work by certain employees. He never articulated
which employees were barred from such work by the WFU
contract until the Company provided a list of 26 section leaders.
While the Union ultimately took the position that 2 of the 26
were barred from overtime work, it has not shown how these 2
are distinguishable from the others.18
The question of whether a particular individual is a supervi-
sor within the meaning of the Act was described by Judge
Goldberg of the 5th Circuit as “persistently vexing,” NLRB v.
Security Guard Service, 384 F.2d 143, 1435 (5th Cir. 1967).
The resolution of this issue requires a determination of whether
the individual exercises authority with regard to certain respon-
sibilities enumerated in Section 2(11) of the Act, such as hiring,
firing, and directing the work of others, in a manner requiring
the use of independent judgment. Moreover, one who exercises
at least some of these responsibilities on a sporadic basis and in
a manner largely incidental to his or her own work may not
necessarily be a statutory supervisor, Southern Bleachery &
Print Works, Inc., 115 NLRB 787, 791 (1956), enfd. 257 F.2d.
235, 239 (4th Cir. 1958).
The fact that so much of the parties’ time in negotiations
case was spent unproductively discussing the supervisor issue
appears to be the responsibility of the Union, not the Respon-
dent. If the Union had a legitimate concern about the scope of
the bargaining unit, it should have been able to identify which
17 Respondent claims it would have complied with Stremcha’s re-
quest on February 26, 1998, but for the withdrawal petition.
18 It is not clear that the grievances filed by the Union in December,
concerned work performed by these two individuals, other section
leaders, or the production managers or shift supervisors.
RTP CO. 479
individuals it was concerned with and should have been able to
provide a basis for distinguishing these individuals from the
“bargaining unit supervisors” it now claims were not statutory
supervisors.
Respondent’s January 2, 1998 Letter Violated Section 8(a)(1)
and is not Protected by Section 8(c) of the Act
While Respondent’s January 2, 1998 letter to its employees
accurately summarized the events surrounding the tentative
agreement by the Union to an representation election, it con-
cludes by blaming the UAW for the fact that employees would
not be getting their annual wage increase. The Company, how-
ever, believed that the Union had given its blessing to a wage
increase and had waived its right to bargain over the raise. If
the Company had any concerns that the Union had changed its
position or had not waived its right to bargain, these were dis-
pelled by Klingfus’ letter of January 12. Respondent’s behav-
ior in granting the wage increase on January 15, indicates that it
understood that the Union had not reneged on its agreement
with regard to the wage increase and had waived its right to
bargain; otherwise, the increase would have constituted direct
dealing, an obvious and blatant 8(a)(5) violation.19
Nevertheless, Respondent made no attempt to correct the
impression it gave to employees that the Union had tried to
prevent or at least been an impediment to the wage increase.
This was not an expression of views, argument, or opinion
protected by Section 8(c). It was a misstatement of fact, which
would reasonably tend to undermine employees’ confidence
and support for the Union. It is not surprising that employees
would become alienated from a union which they believed had
prevented a wage increase. I therefore conclude that the letter
would reasonably tend to restrain employees in the exercise of
their rights under Section 7, and thus violated Section 8(a)(1),
Hillhaven Rehabilitation Center, 325 NLRB 202 (1997).
Respondent did not Violate the Act in Notifying the Union on
February 9, 1998, that it Would no Longer Ddeduct Union
Dues from Employees’ Paychecks
Paragraph 9(i) of the complaint alleges that Respondent vio-
lated the Act by ceasing the deduction of union dues from em-
ployees’ paychecks. An employer is not required to continue to
deduct such dues if its collective-bargaining agreement with the
Union has expired, Bethlehem Steel Co., 136 NLRB 1500
(1962), enf. denied on other grounds 320 F.2d 615 (3d Cir.
1963). Respondent’s collective-bargaining agreement with the
WFU provided that it would remain in force until December 31,
1996, and from year to year thereafter, unless either party gave
notice no earlier than 90 days, and no later than 60 days prior to

19 The General Counsel argues that the Union did not waive its right
to bargain over the wage increase and reduction in employee insurance
premiums. I conclude that it did so at the December 11, 1997 negotiat-
ing session, and reiterated this waiver by virtue of Klingfus’ January 12
letter to Respondent. Statements made by Klingfus at the December 11
negotiating session clearly intended and expressed a conscious relin-
quishment of the Union’s right to bargain over changes in insurance
premiums, so long as they did not completely offset any wage increase,
Intermountain Rural Electric Assn., 305 NLRB 783, 786 (1991), enfd.
984 F.2d 1562 (10th Cir. 1993).
the expiration of the contract, that it wished that the contract be
terminated or amended.
The Union gave notice in 1996 and 1997 that it wished to
negotiate amendments to the contract. Respondent contends
that, as a result, the contract expired on December 31, 1996, or
alternatively, on December 31, 1997. It is evident that both
parties regarded the contract to be in force throughout 1997. A
literal reading of the WFU contract would indicate that it ex-
pired on a request for amendment. Further, it is not clear what
the parties understood to be the status of the WFU contract after
December 31, 1997. Therefore, I conclude that the General
Counsel has not established that it was still in force in February
1998. Respondent was thus entitled to cease deducting dues
payments.
Respondent was not Entitled to Withdraw Recognition from the
Union on February 26, 1998
A union is irrebuttably presumed to continue to enjoy the
support of a majority of the unit employees for 1 year after its
certification and after the certification year has elapsed, while a
collective-bargaining agreement is in effect. After the contract
expires, the union is still presumed to enjoy majority status, but
the presumption is rebuttable. In the latter situation, the em-
ployer may rebut the presumption and withdraw recognition if
it can show that the union in fact no longer has the support of a
majority of the unit employees, or that the employer has a rea-
sonably based doubt, based on objective considerations, as to
the union’s continued majority status. Any such doubt, how-
ever, must be raised in a context free of unfair labor practices of
the sort likely, under all the circumstances, to affect the union’s
status, cause employee disaffection, or improperly affect the
bargaining relationship, Lee Lumber & Building Material
Corp., 322 NLRB 175 (1996), enfd. in relevant part 117 F.3d
1454 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
In cases in which it is established that the employer unlaw-
fully refused to recognize and bargain with the incumbent un-
ion, a relationship between these unlawful acts and the union’s
subsequent loss of majority support may be presumed. How-
ever, in cases involving unfair labor practices other than a gen-
eral refusal to bargain, the Board has identified several factors
as relevant to determining whether a causal relationship exists
between unremedied unfair labor practices and the subsequent
expression of employee disaffection with an incumbent union.
These factors include:

(1) The length of time between the unfair labor practices and
the withdrawal of recognition; (2) the nature of the illegal
acts, including the possibility of their detrimental or lasting ef-
fect on employees; (3) any possible tendency to cause em-
ployee disaffection from the union; and (4) the effect of the
unlawful conduct on employee morale, organizational activi-
ties, and membership in the union.

Williams Enterprises, 312 NLRB 937 (1993), enfd. 50 F.3d
1280 (4th Cir. 1995).
In the instant matter the first three factors set forth above
would cut in favor of a finding that Respondent’s withdrawal of
recognition on February 26, 1998, was illegal. The January 2
letter was likely to cause disaffection 6weeks later when the
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 480
withdrawal petition was circulated. The fourth factor, however,
is much harder to analyze because there was widespread disaf-
fection with the Union before Respondent sent out its letter.
This issue is related to Respondent’s assertion that it had rea-
sons, apart from the withdrawal petition, to doubt the Union’s
majority support.
It is apparent that Respondent did not feel confident with-
drawing recognition from the Union until it had confirmation
regarding the withdrawal petition. However, that petition is
substantially tainted by the January 2 letter and does not pro-
vide a basis for legally withdrawing recognition. The General
Counsel does not challenge Respondent’s contention that the
Union did not have majority support on February 26. The issue
is whether Respondent had a good-faith doubt as to the Union’s
majority status without the petition.
At pages 28–29 of its brief, Respondent sets forth the factors
on which it relies in contending that it had a good-faith doubt as
to the UAW’s majority status. These factors warrant scrutiny
individually:
a. There had been at least one and maybe two prior attempts
by employees to get rid of the UAW, which were rejected by
the NLRB: These petitions were circulated in 1996 and were
thus tainted by Respondent’s initial unlawful refusal to recog-
nize and bargain with the UAW. They provide no basis for a
reasonable good-faith doubt as to the Union’s majority status in
February 1998.
b. There had been constant turmoil amongst employees over
the affiliation with the UAW: This was “old news” in February
1998. It is obvious from the prior Board decision and common
knowledge to everyone involved in this matter that there was
strong opposition to the UAW within the bargaining unit and
that at least some of the individuals opposing the UAW had not
changed their view since February 1996. This knowledge pro-
vides no basis for concluding that Respondent had a reasonable
good-faith doubt as to the UAW’s majority support in February
1998.
c. The Union never had more than 75 members and, just
prior to the petition, had only 55–60 members: This also pro-
vides no basis for a reasonable good-faith doubt. In affirming
the Board in an analogous case, Judge Winter of the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals noted:

A showing that less than a majority of the employees in the
bargaining unit were members of the union or paid union dues
was not the equivalent of showing lack of union support.
Manifestly, in the absence of a closed shop agreement . . .
many employees are content neither to join the union nor to
give it financial support but to enjoy the benefits of represen-
tation. Nonetheless, the union may enjoy their support, and
they may desire continued representation by it.

Terrell Machine Co. v. NLRB, 427 F.2d 1088, 1090 (4th Cir.
1970), enfg. 173 NLRB 1480 (1969).
d. As recently as the spring of 1997, when the final resolu-
tion of the first case was achieved, a mass resignation from
union membership occurred: This mass resignation probably
occurred in the spring of 1996 and thus may be tainted by Re-
spondent’s initial refusal to recognize and bargain with the
Union.
e. Union Vice President Ken Erickson told Chuck Wunder-
lich in December 1997, that he and Stremcha would ask the
NLRB for a representation election even if the UAW region did
not agree to such an election: First of all, I decline to credit
Wunderlich’s testimony to this effect in part because it was not
corroborated by Erickson, a witness now favorably disposed to
Respondent. Secondly, a willingness to submit to a representa-
tion election does not necessarily indicate a belief that the Un-
ion would lose. Indeed, it is difficult to understand why an in-
cumbent Union would voluntarily agree to a representation
election in such circumstances. Indeed, Erickson testified that
while he favored submitting to a representation election, it was
not because he had questions about the Union’s majority status
(Tr. 592-93).
f. The Union spent 4–5 hours deliberating on whether to
agree to a representation election: Having concluded that the
fact that the Union tentatively agreed to the election does not
provide Respondent with a basis for a good-faith doubt as to
majority status, the Union’s deliberations cannot do so either.
g. The Union only received 30 responses to its survey solicit-
ing input from bargaining unit members before the August 26,
1997 bargaining session: Since the number of members is not a
valid reason to doubt the Union’s majority status, the fact that
members and nonmembers may have eschewed an active part
in the Union’s deliberations does not constitute a valid reason
for such doubt.
h. There was significant union officer turnover, without re-
placement: The fact that Brian Stremcha and Pat Berg appear to
have been the only union officers in February 1998, does not
provide a basis for Respondent to conclude that the Union did
not have majority support. First of all, the fact that an employee
does not want to become actively involved in union affairs does
not mean that he does not want continued union representation.
Moreover, the inability of the Union to procure a replacement
for Ken Erickson could be due in part to the disaffection cre-
ated by the January 2, 1998 letter.
i. The “bargaining unit supervisors” expressed dissatisfaction
with the Union’s attempt to remove them from the bargaining
unit: Respondent had little knowledge regarding how many of
these employees ever supported the UAW20 or how many
changed their minds as the result of the Union’s negotiation
strategy regarding their status. Moreover, Chuck Wunderlich
advised these employees to discuss their situation with Brian
Stremcha and there is no indication that Respondent knew
whether or not some, or all, of these individuals were satisfied
with Stremcha’s explanation.
j. Employees had withdrawn support from the Chemical
Workers Union in 1984: That the Chemical Workers lost the
support of a majority of employees in 1984 has no relevance to
whether the Union had the support of a majority of employees
in 1997 and early 1998.
k. Scott Holubar told Respondent that a majority of employ-
ees had signed a petition to throw out the UAW: Like the peti-
tion itself, this information is tainted the January 2, 1998 letter
and cannot be relied upon by Respondent.

20 Other than the fact that several were having union dues deducted
from their paychecks.
RTP CO. 481
While Respondent had evidence of some disaffection with
the Union, I conclude that it did not have any objective basis
for a reasonable doubt that the Union lacked majority support
that was untainted by its unfair labor practice. The Company’s
rush to get evidence of the petition before the February 26 ne-
gotiating session virtually proves this.
Respondent Violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) in Bypassing the
Union and Dealing Unilaterally with its Unit Employees After
February 26, 1998, and in Failing to Provide the Union with
Requested Information, and in Refusing to Grant Union Offi-
cials Time Off for Union Business
Having found that Respondent was not entitled to withdraw
recognition and cease its bargaining with the Union on Febru-
ary 26, 1998, all the allegations for which Respondent relies on
the withdrawal as a defense violated the Act. These include
benefits directly granted to employees without consulting the
Union, the refusal to comply with the Union’s information
requests, refusal to allow the Union to participate in the griev-
ance process and denial of the requests of union officials for
time off to attend to union business.
Respondent Violated Section 8(a)(2) of the Act in Paying Mi-
chael Bernatz’ Legal Fees for Services he Rendered to the
Winona Free Union
Section 8(a)(2) makes it an unfair labor practice for an em-
ployer to dominate or interfere with the formation or admini-
stration of any labor organization or contribute financial or
other support to it. As noted in Hardin, The Developing Labor
Law (3d ed. 1992) at page 289, the primary purpose of this
Section is to eradicate company unionism, a practice in which
employers establish and control inhouse labor organizations in
order to prevent organization by autonomous unions.
Respondent paid Michael Bernatz through its attorney, Frank
Wohletz, for services Bernatz rendered between February 1,
1996, and April 3, 1997. These services were rendered to
Robert Kashuba, Scott Holubar, Ernie Fratzke, Jeff Serwa, and
other anti-UAW employees with regard to their employment
with Respondent. Indeed, these services appear to pertain
solely to the issue of whether RTP employees would be repre-
sented by the UAW. Respondent’s defense to the allegation
that its payments to Bernatz violated Section 8(a)(2) is that
Bernatz’ clients were not a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Section 2(5) provides as follows: The term “labor organiza-
tion” means any organization of any kind, or any agency or
employee representation committee or plan, in which employ-
ees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in
part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or condi-
tions of work. This is a term that Congress meant to be defined
broadly. A group may meet this definition even if it lacks a
formal structure, has no elected officers, constitution or bylaws,
does not meet regularly, does not require payment of initiation
fees or dues, and does not engage in collective bargaining with
the employer, Electromation, Inc., 309 NLRB 990 (1992), enfd.
35 F.3d 1148 (7th Cir. 1994).
Bernatz’ clients were a labor organization within the mean-
ing of this definition. They acted in concert in dealing with
Respondent to get rid of the UAW.21 Their status as members
of a bargaining unit represented by the UAW constitutes a
“condition of work” within the meaning of Section 2(5). There-
fore, I conclude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2) as
alleged.
Respondent Violated Section 8(a)(1) in its Pretrial Interview of
Employee Ken Erickson
In preparation for the hearing in this matter, Respondent’s at-
torneys issued a subpoena duces tecum to employee Ken Erick-
son, who had been the Union’s vice president until January
1998. Counsel interviewed him in a conference room at Re-
spondent’s plant a week prior to the hearing. At the outset of
the interview Respondent’s attorney presented Erickson with a
written notice explaining that the purpose of the interview was
to investigate the Union’s allegations of unfair labor practices.
The notice concluded:

Your participation in this interview is completely voluntary.
No discrimination will result if you choose not to participate
and no reward will result if you choose to participate [R. Exh.
17].

When Erickson arrived for the interview, Respondent’s hu-
man resources director, Richard Kulas, and manufacturing
manager, Larry Stoltman, were in the conference room with
their counsel. They asked him if he wanted them to leave.
Erickson replied that it did not matter to him, so they stayed.
Attorney Zech asked about the dates of Erickson’s tenure as a
union officer and whether he attended all the contract negotia-
tion sessions. Zech inquired as to whether Erickson signed the
withdrawal petition. They discussed Erickson’s understanding
of the petition when he signed and his opinion of George Kling-
fus.
In response to the subpoena Erickson supplied Zech with
notes of union meetings, which identified employees who at-
tended those meetings, and contained Erickson’s notes as to
what transpired during those meetings.
The General Counsel, pursuant to an amendment to the com-
plaint made during the hearing, alleges that Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) in conducting the interview in the pres-
ence of Kulas and Stoltman, giving inadequate assurances that
no reprisals would take place if Erickson did not choose to
participate, by inquiring into Erickson’s reasons for signing the
decertification petition and inquiring into the identities of em-
ployees who attended union meetings and the topics discussed.
The Board in Johnnie’s Poultry, 146 NLRB 770 (1964), es-
tablished safeguards designed to minimize the coercive impact
of an investigatory interview by an employer, while allowing
the employer to investigate facts concerning issues raised in the
complaint. It stated that the employer:

Must communicate to the employee the purpose of the ques-
tioning, assure him that no reprisals will take place, and obtain
his participation on a voluntary basis; the questioning must
occur in a context free from employer hostility to union
ercive in nature, and the organization and must not be itself co
21 In March 1996, Kashuba posted several position statements claim-
ing that the WFU continued to exist in an unaffiliated form, RTP Co.,
supra.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 482
ganization and must not be itself coercive in nature, and the
questions must not exceed the necessities of the legitimate
purpose by prying into other union matters, eliciting informa-
tion concerning an employee’s subjective state of mind, or
otherwise interfering with the statutory rights of employees.

I conclude that the written notice given to Erickson satisfied
Respondent’s obligation to explain the purpose of the interview
and assure him that no reprisals would take place. However, I
conclude that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) by conduct-
ing the interview in the presence of Kulas and Stoltman. Re-
spondent is not entitled to put the burden on the employee as to
whether management employees attend such an interview. An
employee in Erickson’s position will tend to feel inhibited in
insisting that they leave, a decision that itself might be viewed
by management as uncooperative.22
While there may be situations in which the presence of a
management official may be necessary in assisting counsel,
there is no indication that this was true in the instant case. An
employee is more likely to be intimidated in answering ques-
tions in front of management officials with day-to-day author-
ity over him than to an attorney he is likely to encounter only
once or twice.
Although Respondent’s counsel was clearly entitled to de-
termine whether Erickson would corroborate its witnesses’
account of the negotiations, it violated Section 8(a)(1) in ob-
taining from him documents that identified employees who
attended union meetings and indicated the nature of the discus-
sions at those meetings. Respondent also violated the Act in
questioning Erickson about those meetings, which may have
revealed to the Employer union sympathizers and union activi-
ties of which the Employer was not previously aware.
Respondent could have attempted to prove that its had a rea-
sonable good-faith doubt of the Union’s majority status without
inquiring into the identity of those of who attended union meet-
ings and what was discussed. Only information that it had at the
time of withdrawal would be relevant to its good-faith doubt.
The number of people attending union meetings is also insuffi-
ciently probative of whether the Union actually had majority
support that Respondent’s inquiries with regard to these meet-
ings is unjustifiable.

22 I conclude that it is irrelevant that Respondent had reason to be-
lieve that Erickson no longer supported the Union, and may have been
sympathetic to RTP with respect to the unfair labor practice charges, Le
Bus, 324 NLRB 588 (1997).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By its letter of January 2, 1998, Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) of the Act in undermining the Union and discourag-
ing employee support for the Union by misrepresenting the
reason employees would not be getting a wage increase and by
blaming the Union for Respondent’s decision not to give a
wage increase, when in fact, Respondent knew that the Union
had acceded to the wage increase.
2. On February 26, 1998, Respondent violated Section
8(a)(1) and (5) in withdrawing recognition of the Union and
refusing to bargain with it further.
3. Since February 26, 1998, Respondent has violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (5) by bypassing the Union and dealing directly
with unit employees in the following respects:
a. Sending its employees a letter on March 19, 1998,
informing them that Respondent was reviewing its medical,
401(k), vacation, and other benefits.
b. Unilaterally implementing a superior attendance incentive
program on April 15, 1998;
c. Informing employees of the availability of health insur-
ance coverage through Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minne-
sota in May 1998.
4. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) by refusing to
comply with the information request submitted by Union Presi-
dent Brian Stremcha on February 16, 1998.
5. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) in informing Pat Berg
that it would no longer authorize him to take time off for union
business on March 23, 1998.
6. Since February 26, 1998, Respondent has violated the Act
in refusing to allow the Union to participate in the grievance
process.
7. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(2) in paying Attorney
Michael Bematz for legal services rendered to anti-UAW bar-
gaining unit employees.
8. Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) in conducting its pre-
trial interview of employee Kenneth Erickson in the presence of
its manufacturing manager and human relations manager. It
also violated Section 8(a)(1) by inquiring into matters that re-
vealed the identity of employees who attended union meetings
and the discussions that took place at those meetings.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
RTP CO. 483
Respondent will be ordered to recognize and resume negotia-
tions with the union on request.23 It will be ordered, by its

23 A bargaining order is the Board’s traditional remedy in this type of
case, Bi-Craft Litho, 316 NLRB 302 (1995). Given the fact that Re-
spondent had no basis for ceasing to bargain with the Union—apart
from the illegal withdrawal of recognition, I see no reason to depart
from this tradition. Respondent’s argument that a bargaining order is
inappropriate because the Union never had the support of a majority of
the unit employees, is essentially an effort to relitigate the initial Board
decision, which ordered it to bargain with Local 2340 and upheld the
validity of the affiliation vote.
president or senior vice president/chief executive officer, to
read to assembled employees the notice to employees, which
appears at the end of this decision, in addition to posting the
notice. Respondent will also be ordered to bargain collectively
in good faith with the Union for a reasonable period of time
concerning wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
employment, and if an understanding is reached, to embody it
in a written agreement.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]