Sylvania Electric Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsSep 28, 1965

154 N.L.R.B. 1756 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

1756 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL make Henry Alvin Minnich, Sr., whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor orga- nizations , to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such rights may be affected by an agreement requiring member- ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. All of our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named or any other labor organization. CREW BUILDERS SUPPLY CO., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Room 2023, Federal Office Building, 550 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio, Telephone No. 381-2200. Sylvania Electric Products, Inc. and Local 352, International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO. Case No. 3-CA-2459. September 28,1965 DECISION AND ORDER On July 9, 1965, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin issued his Decision in the above-entitled case, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recommend- ing that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. There- after, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof, and the Charging Party also filed excep- tions to portions of the Decision to which the Respondent filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Zagoria]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations of the Trial Examiner. 154 NLRB No. 149. SYLVANIA ELECTRIC PRODUCTS, INC. 1757 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders that the Respondent, Sylvania Electric Products, Inc., Batavia, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges filed on September 24, 1964, by Local 352, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 3 (Buffalo, New York), issued his complaint, dated January 12, 1965, against Sylvania Electric Products, Inc., herein called the Respondent. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges, in substance, that: (1) At all times material herein, the Union has been the exclusive representative of the employees in a specified appropriate unit; (2) on certain dates Respondent has refused to furnish the Union, upon request, data related to the cost of insurance and pension programs proposed by Respondent; and (3) by such conduct Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. In its duly filed answer, Respondent admits the appropriateness of the unit, the Union's exclusive collective-bargaining representative status for the employees in said unit, and that at all times since September 23, 1964, the Respondent has refused to furnish the data requested by the Union which related to the cost of insurance and pension programs proposed by Respondent; it denies, however, all unfair labor practice allegations. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Trial Examiner Louis Libbin at Buffalo, New York, on April 19, 1965. All parties were represented at the hearing and were given full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce relevant evidence, and to file briefs. On May 17, 1965, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed briefs, which I have fully considered. For the reasons hereinafter indicated, I find that Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. Upon the entire record in the case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT Respondent Sylvania Electric Products, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is engaged at various plants in several States, including a plant at Batavia, New York, in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of electrical and related products. During the year preceding the issuance of the instant complaint, Respondent sold and shipped from its Batavia, New York, plant, the only plant involved in this proceeding, prod- ucts, valued in excess of $50,000, directly to locations outside the State of New York. Upon the above admitted facts, I find, as Respondent admits, that Respondent is. engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The complaint alleges, the answer admits, the record shows, and I find, that Local 352, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Introduction; the issues The parties are in agreement that all production and maintenance employees, with the exclusions specified in the complaint, at Respondent's Batavia, New York, plant, 1758 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD constitute an appropriate unit for collective bargaining purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act, and that at all times since June 10, 1954, the Union has been, and still is, the exclusive representative of said employees within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. The Respondent and the Union were parties to a col- lective-bargaining agreement covering the employees in said unit, which by its terms was to terminate on September 30, 1964. This agreement provided, among other things, for group insurance and pension programs, the cost of which was born solely by Respondent. During the course of the negotiations for a new agreement, Respond- ent made a written economic offer to the Union, which, among other things, included improvements in its group insurance and pension programs. When the Union, during the course of these negotiations, requested Respondent to supply its estimated costs, in cents per hour, for the proposed improvements in the pension and group insurance programs, Respondent refused on the ground that it was not legally required to fur- nish this information to the Union because the benefits were noncontributory. The sole issue litigated in this case is whether Respondent violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act by its conduct in refusing during contract negotiations to furnish the Union with the requested estimated cost to Respondent of its proposed improve- ments in its noncontributory pension and group insurance programs. B. The facts 1 Prior to the commencement of negotiations, the Union, by letter dated June 11, 1964, requested Respondent to furnish certain information, including some cost data relating to its insurance and pension programs, claiming that such information was "necessary for intelligent bargaining." Thereafter, on July 21, 1964, Respondent furnished the Union with certain past and current pension and group insurance data, including payments made and actuarial assumptions, in the case of the pension plan, and claim and premium expenses, in the case of the group insurance program. The parties negotiated for a new contract on 15 separate days during the period from July 24 to October 1, 1964, when 2greement was reached on a 3-year contract. All bargaining sessions were held in Respondent's plant conference room. The Union was represented by Peter Scibetta, chairman of the Union's Sylvania Conference Board and a member of the Union's International Executive Board,2 John Torceilo, the Union's president, Betty McCready, the Union's vice president, Mike Joy, the Union's chief steward, and Anthony Pulllnzi and Lil Hoffman, two employee members at large of the negotiating committee. The Respondent was represented by Joseph Gill, its manager of industrial relations and chief spokesman, Tom Kandl, chief indus- trial engineer, Mike Cardone, manufacturing superintendent, and Les Summers. At the first meeting held on July 24, the parties exchanged initial contract pro- posals. The Union's proposals included, among other things, suggested improve- ments in the then-existing pension and insurance programs. At the meeting held on August 10, Respondent made a written economic offer to the Union, which, among other things, contained certain suggested changes in both the pension and group insurance programs.3 At the meeting held on August 12, Respondent's Chief Nego- tiator Gill gave a detailed explanation of Respondent's proposed package. The Union's Chief Negotiator Scibetta asked for a cost breakdown of Respondent's pro- posed economic offer. Gill replied that Respondent had never bargained on the basis of cost but was bargaining only on the level of benefits. When Scibetta asked if Respondent did not look at the cost, Gill replied that he would not be sitting there if Respondent did not look at the cost but Respondent would not give the requested 'There is no serious dispute as to the relevant facts which gave rise to the issue in this case. a The only meeting which Scibetta failed to attend was that held on September 23, 1964. 3 As part of the changes in the group insurance program, there was included a coordi- nation of benefits proposals, called "COB," whereunder an individual covered under Re- spondent's plan and that of another employer would not receive full benefits under both plans so as to be paid twice for the same disability. In other words, the payments of both plans were to be coordinated so as to make the individual whole for the disability, as nearly as possible, but to eliminate duplication of benefits. The proposed changes also included a benefit ceiling on semiprivate room rates ,. which might affect an employee at some future time if local room rates reached the defined ceiling. SYLVANIA ELECTRIC PRODUCTS, INC. 1759 breakdowns because it was not obligated to do S0.4 Thereafter, the plant was closed for a 3-week vacation period during which no meetings were held. At a meeting held on September 8, Earl Kipp, assistant director of the IUE pension and insurance department, made a presentation of the suggested improvements which the Union wanted in the pension and insurance programs. At the meeting held on September 11, the Union asked Respondent to respond to Kipp's presentation and also for Respondent's position on the requested improvements. Respondent's repre- sentatives replied that they were still studying the Union's proposals and were not prepared to respond to them at the time but would do so at some future time. At the meeting held on September 16, the Union wound up its explanation of all the pro- posals which it had submitted. At the conclusion, Gill stated that the Union's eco- nomic demands were substantial and represented a sizable cost to the Respondent if it were to accept them. Respondent's representatives then began an explanation of the proposals which Respondent had submitted to the Union. This explanation was continued at the meeting held on September 17. When the subject of job evalua- tion challenges was under discussion at this meeting, Gill stated that the Union's suggested changes would represent a cost to Respondent and that any change in the job evaluation system actually became part of a wage package if Respondent were to agree to it. When Gill further commented that the Union's proposals on the job evaluation program would put the Respondent in a position of not being competitive, Scibetta asked for a cost breakdown and pointed out that the Union was there to represent people and not misrepresent them, that to put Respondent in a noncompeti- tive position would only result in jobs being lost, and that that certainly was not representing people.5 At the meeting held on September 23, Clifford Haley, an International staffsman for the Union, substituted for Scibetta who was absent that day. At the beginning of the meeting, Haley requested a cost breakdown of Respondent's package. Gill replied that it was Respondent's position that they did not bargain on the level of cost but on the level of benefits. Vice President McCready stated her understand- ing to be that Respondent had attached a cost to its package and asserted that the Union was asking for it and was entitled to it. Gill admitted that Respondent had attached a cost to it. When Chief Steward Joy asked if it was available, Gill replied that the Union had not asked for it in past years. Joy admitted this to be the case but pointed out that they were asking for it this year because they needed it. When Gill still refused, Haley asked if Respondent would give a breakdown of the worth of the packages in Buffalo as compared to Batavia "because if there was a difference he would like to be able to spread this over other benefits." Gill replied that he would consider it, pointed out that there were other improvements in the package, and added that he could not improve the package by 30 percent. Haley then referred to the pension plan, and stated that he understood there was a cost attached to the pension package and that it would not be worth one-half cent. Gill admitted that there was a cost attached to it but that Respondent had to consider all the improve- ments. Joy then stated that he did not believe it was a good package and that he would just as soon take the insurance package in the previous contract, as he felt that the prior provisions meant more than the one being offered. He then added that if there was any additional cost, he would like to have Respondent add it to the wage offer and forget about giving the Union new insurance. Gill replied that he would consider it. At this point, a union committeeman stated that if Respondent wanted the Union to sign the contract, they would have to give the Union something to sell. * Scibetta testified that at this meeting he also specifically asked Gill what it would cost for Respondent 's proposed improvements in the insurance and pension programs in terms of hourly cost. Gill testified that no specific request of this nature was made prior to September 23. He did admit that at several meetings prior to September 23, one or more officers of the Union did talk about cost. I do not regard it as material, and therefore do not decide , whether the specific request for a cost breakdown in cents per hour for the proposed insurance and pension improvement was also made prior to Sep- tember 23. I do find , under all the circumstances , that at the August 12 meeting Scibetta did make a request for a cost breakdown in the general terms set forth in the text. 6 Scibetta testified, and Gill denied, that at this meeting he specifically requested a cost breakdown in cents per hour with respect to each of the benefits contained in Respond- ent's offer. For reasons previously stated, I deem it unnecessary to resolve this conflict. I do find, as stated in the text, that Scibetta asked for a cost breakdown in general terms. 1760 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Joy pointed out that they could not go and sell intelligently to the people when they did not understand the offer themselves. After a short recess, Gill stated that their position had not changed . The meeting thereupon adjourned. The Union's president that same day, September 23, sent the following letter to Gill: Today in negotiations you repeatedly refused to give this organization requested information as to the cost in cents per hour of each item of the Company's offer for a new collective bargaining agreement. This letter is directed to you as a follow-up on the oral request made on Sep- tember 23, 1964. Your co-operation in this matter is needed so we can reach a fair and appli- cable agreement. By reply letter dated September 25, 1964, Respondent denied the Union's request stating that: ... With respect to your most recent request for additional cost data, which preceded your calling a recess in negotiations, such request related primarily to your desire to have the cost estimate of the company in its proposed non- contributory improvements in such things as Pension, Insurance and Vacations. As you know our Pension, Insurance and Vacation programs, including the proposed improvements therein, are being provided without diminishment, regardless of the fluctuation in costs thereof during the term of a new Agreement. As a result, our compliance with your request is not necessary in order to pro- ceed with negotiations or to reach a fair and equitable new Agreement, and, thus, we re-affirm our position not to supply such information. Your making our compliance with the Union request a prerequisite to a continuation of nego- tiations is seriously impeding such a settlement. Meanwhile, on September 24, the Union filed with the Board's Regional Office a charge alleging that "since on or about September 23, 1964," Respondent has failed and refused to furnish the Union "information necessary for collective bargaining purposes as to the cost of the Employer's offer as to pensions, insurance and vacations." Negotiations were resumed on September 28. The meeting opened with Chief Union Negotiator Scibetta making a formal request for the same information. Gill replied that Respondent had taken the position that they were not going to give the Union the information and that they were not obligated to do so. Scibetta stated that the Union had filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Board to protect itself and that they did not intend to waive their right to this information. He pointed out that the Union felt this information was necessary to enable it to be "realistic" and "intelligent" in reaching an agreement. He explained that the Union had agreed to meet to try to resolve the remaining issues and to reach an agreement because they recognized that the processing of the unfair labor practice charge would take "some time." Another meeting was held on September 30. About 1:30 a.m. on October 1, the parties reached a final agreement. At that time, Respondent's attorney asked Scibetta if the Union intended to pursue the unfair labor practice charge. Scibetta replied in the affirmative, pointing out that the Union did not want to face the same situa- tions 3 years later, when the new agreement was to terminate, and that the Union wanted to know "one way or the other" whether it was entitled to this information. C. Concluding findings Respondent admits that at the meeting of September 23, 1964, and at all times thereafter, it has refused to comply with the Union's request to furnish Respondent's estimated costs of its proposed pension and group insurance improvements. Respond- ent also admits that its refusals were at all times based solely on the ground that it was not legally required to furnish said information to the Union because the benefits were noncontributory. In support of its position, Respondent relies primarily on the decision of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Sylvania Electric Products, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 291 F. 2d 128, cert. denied 368 U.S. 926 (1961). In that case, the company refused to furnish the bargaining representative of its employees at its plant in Seneca Falls, New York, upon the latter's request for use in contract negotiations , information pertaining to the premium costs for an employee insurance program maintained by the company. The Board, reversing its Trial Examiner, held that the premiums paid by the company, as well as the benefits granted, under the company 's noncontributory insurance program constitute "wages" concern- SYLVANIA ELECTRIC PRODUCTS, INC. 1761 ing which bargaining is required by the Act, that the requested premium cost data therefore related directly to the matter of wages, that such data was relevant to the bargaining representative's task as bargaining agent, and that the company's refusal to furnish the requested data was violative of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Sylvania Electric Products, Inc., 127 NLRB 924. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the Board, concluding that the cost of the company's noncontribu- tory group insurance program "was neither a wage `nor a term or condition of employment' within any generally accepted meaning of the terms." However, in a case decided by the Board after certiorari had been denied in the Sylvania case, the Board stated that ". . . we respectfully disagree with the distinction drawn by the Court of Appeals between costs and the benefits of a noncontributory insurance plan ...." The Electric Furnace Co., and Salem Fabricating & Machine Co., 137 NLRB 1077, 1080. While it is true that the statement was dictum, it never- theless expresses the Board's nonacquiescence in the court's decision, a position which the Board has even more recently reiterated. General Electric Company, 150 NLRB 192.6 Moreover, the instant case is distinguishable from the earlier Sylvania case because the record shows that in the instant case Respondent itself made costs a relevant bargaining issue. Thus, as previously found, at the September 16 meeting Respond- ent's chief spokesman, Gill, stated that the Union's economic demands were substan- tial and would represent a sizable cost to Respondent. At the September 17 meeting, Gill stated that the Union's suggested changes in the job evaluation plan would repre- sent a cost to Respondent and put it in a noncompetitive position. And Gill himself admitted at the instant hearing that he had stated several times during the negotiating sessions that acceptance of the Union's proposals would involve excessive costs. Thus, even on the basis of the court's rationale in Sylvania, there was no legal justi- fication for Respondent's refusal to furnish the requested information. Respondent has made no claim that the requested information could not have been made available or that it would have involved any undue hardship to make it avail- able. It admitted taking such costs into consideration in formulating the economic package if offered the Union. The record shows that the requested data was relevant suppliable information. The Union wanted the information for comparison with the value of the old benefits and to be in a better position to determine whether its demands were reasonable or should be scaled down. The Union also wanted to explore the possibility of shifting the costs to different benefits which might be more suitable. Nor was the requested information "speculative" merely because they were' "estimates." 7 There is no merit to Respondent's contention of a lack of proof of actual necessity for the requested information. As recently stated by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, "Once relevance is determined, an employer's refusal to honor a request is a per se violation of the Act. Reasonable necessity for a union to have relevant data is apparent; necessity is not a separate and unique guideline, but is directly related to the relevance of the requested data." Curtiss-Wright Corp., Wright Aeronautical Division v. N.L.R.B., 347 F. 2d 61 (C.A. 3). This court also rejected as being without merit further contentions, similar to those raised by Respondent in the instant case, to the effect that a new 3-year contract was executed without the requested information being supplied or that a requirement that the requested infor- mation be supplied would be inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision in N.L.R.B. v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149. BThus, the Trial Examiner stated in his report, adopted by the Board, "First, It [Gen- eral Motors] contends that cost information as to its pension and insurance proposals could not be legally required because employees were not being asked to bear any part of the cost of the new increments. That contention is rejected on the authority of the Board's decision In Sylvania and for other reasons set out above." 7 As the Trial Examiner stated In his report, adopted by the Board in General Electric Company, 150 NLRB 192, "But, estimates are not `speculative,' except in the loosest sense of the term, simply because they are estimates. And particularly Is this so where the estimates are based on the application of actuarial standards as in the case of pensions and Insurance. In composing its offer the Company considered the cost estimates pre- pared by its experts as sufficiently reliable for it to support a business judgment thereon. The Company was not being asked to guarantee that future experience would prove its cost projections accurate. The fact that the estimates might be subject to a possible margin of error neither destroyed their value to the negotiators nor excused their with- holding." 206-44666-vol. 154-112 1762 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I find that Respondent was required to furnish the estimated cost of its proposed improvements in its noncontributory pension and insurance programs, which the Union requested, in order to fulfill its obligation to bargain with the Union in good faith. In failing to do so at least on and after September 23, 1964, Respondent vio- lated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent, set forth in section III, above, occurring in con- nection with the operations of Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and from like and related conduct, and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Local 352, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, the Union herein, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. All production and maintenance employees at Respondent's Batavia, New York, plant, exclusive of all office and clerical employees, foremen's clerks, designers, tech- nicians, engineers, draftsmen and guards, professional employees and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 3. At all times since June 10, 1954, the above-named Union has been, and still is, the exclusive representative of all the employees in said unit for the purpose of collec- tive bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 4. By refusing on and after September 23, 1963, to provide the Union, upon the latter's request, with the estimated cost to Respondent of its proposed improvements in its noncontributory pension and insurance programs, the Respondent has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the entire record in this case,°and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, I hereby recommend that Respondent, Sylvania Electric Products, Inc., Batavia, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Local 352, International Union of Elec- trical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate unit, by failing and refusing to furnish to said labor organization information and data concerning the cost of proposed improvements in the pension and group insurance programs covering the employees in the appropriate unit. The appropriate bargaining unit is: All production and maintenance employees at the Respondent's Batavia, New York, plant, exclusive of all office and clerical employ- ees, foremen's clerks, designers, technicians, engineers, draftsmen, and guards, pro- fessional employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with the efforts of the employees' exclusive representative to bargain collectively on their behalf. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, furnish to the above-named labor organization the costs or estimated costs of the improvements in the existing pension and group insurance programs covering the employees in the appropriate unit. CANADA DRY CORPORATION 1763 (b) Post at its plant in Batavia, New York, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 8 Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 3 of the Board (Buffalo, New York), shall, after being signed by an author- ized representative of Respondent, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by it. for a period of 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date hereof, what steps it has taken to comply herewith.9 8 In the event this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Exam- iner" in the notice . In the further event that the Board's Order be enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order". Y If this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read : "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith." , APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended , we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Local 352, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of our employees in the bargaining unit described below, by refusing or failing to furnish said union information and data concerning the cost of proposed improvements in the pension and group insurance programs covering the employees in the appropriate unit. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with the efforts of the employees ' exclusive representative to bargain collectively on their behalf. WE WILL, upon request , furnish the above-named union the costs or estimated costs of the improvements in the existing pension and group insurance programs covering the employees in the bargaining unit described below. The appropriate bargaining unit is: All production and maintenance employees at our Batavia, New York, plant, exclusive of all office and clerical employees , foremen's clerks, designers , technicians, engineers , draftsmen , and guards , professional employees , and all supervisors as defined in the Act. SYLVANIA ELECTRIC PRODUCTS, INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its pro- visions, they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Fourth Floor, The 120 Building , 120 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo , New York, Telephone No. TL6-1782. Canada Dry Corporation and Joe Benich. Case No. 8-CA-3671. September 28,1965 DECISION AND ORDER On June 24, 1965, Trial Examiner Arthur Christopher, Jr., issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the 154 NLRB No. 134.