United Technologies Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 19, 1993

310 N.L.R.B. 1126 (N.L.R.B. 1993)

1126
310 NLRB No. 182
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an admin-
istrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear prepon-
derance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incor-
rect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188
F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and
find no basis for reversing the findings.
We correct the following factual errors in the judge’s decision: (1)
the first name of Union Steward Guarino is Jerry and (2) the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement does not provide for mandatory arbitration
of the grievances concerning the job design program, but, contrary
to the judge’s finding, other grievances may be arbitrated pursuant
to the contract. These errors do not affect the ultimate disposition
of the issues presented here.
2 The General Counsel excepts to the judge’s failure to include
‘‘ability-to-learn-quickly’’ as one of the agreed-upon criteria to be
used in reevaluating the raises for the job design program. Inasmuch
as the credited testimony clearly shows that the Respondent did
agree at the August 16 meeting with the Union to use this criterion,
we find merit to the General Counsel’s exception and shall modify
the recommended Order accordingly.
Pratt & Whitney Aircraft, a Division of United
Technologies Corporation and Local Lodge
#700, District 91, International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL–CIO.
Case 34–CA–5044
April 19, 1993
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
DEVANEY AND RAUDABAUGH
On August 5, 1992, Administrative Law Judge
James F. Morton issued the attached decision. Both the
General Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions,
supporting briefs, and answering briefs to the other
party’s exceptions.
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 exceptions and briefs and has de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and con-
clusions and to adopt the recommended Order as
modified.2
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified below and orders that the Respondent, Pratt
& Whitney Aircraft, a Division of United Technologies
Corporation, Middletown, Connecticut, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a).
‘‘(a) Submit for review by the Union revised evalua-
tions of employee job skills at the Middletown plant,
as of July 30, 1990, with credit for the individual em-
ployee’s ability to learn the job quickly and for trans-
ferable skills of employees who, prior thereto, had
principally performed one operation.’’
2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the ad-
ministrative law judge.
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
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT fail to honor any agreement we made
with Local Lodge #700, District 91, International As-
sociation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL–
CIO, in seeking to resolve Job Design grievances you
file.
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 revise the evaluations we made in the
summer of 1990 as to your job abilities so as to give
credit for an individual employee’s ability to learn the
job quickly and for the transferable skills of employees
who previously had been assigned for long periods
principally to one job.
WE WILL devise a formula to establish the raises to
be given employees as a result of those revised evalua-
tions, without any limit thereon, other than the max-
imum labor grade rate, with the raises for the
Weldment employees retroactive to July 30, 1990, and
WE WILL apply the results of that formula to unit em-
ployees at our Middletown plant at that time.
PRATT & WHITNEY AIRCRAFT, A DIVI-
SION OF UNITED TECHNOLOGIES COR-
PORATION
William E. O’Connor, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Edward J. Dempsey, Esq., of Hartford, Connecticut, for the
Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES F. MORTON, Administrative Law Judge. The com-
plaint alleges that Pratt & Whitney Aircraft, a Division of
United Technologies Corporation (the Respondent) has en-
gaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act (the
Act) by having failed to honor an agreement it had reached
with Local Lodge #700, District 91, International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL–CIO (the
Union). The General Counsel contends, in essence, and the
Respondent denies, that an agreement was reached on August
1127UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP.
1 The Respondent filed a motion to strike from General Counsel’s
brief all references to a statement of position the Respondent had
submitted to Region 34 prior to issuance of the complaint. The Re-
spondent notes that the General Counsel did not offer that statement
of position in evidence but that it was made part of the record as
it had been submitted by the Respondent in connection with a mo-
tion to dismiss the complaint, a motion which had been denied. The
Respondent asserts that, had it been aware that the General Counsel
would seek to use that statement as an admission against interest,
it would have adduced testimony thereon. The General Counsel’s
brief contrasts claims made in the statement of position with the ac-
counts given by the Respondent’s own witnesses. The General Coun-
sel argues that the testimony of the Respondent’s witnesses ‘‘is rid-
dled with contradiction.’’ An admission against interest may be used
as evidence as well as to impeach and thus includes assertions made
in position statements of counsel. See Hotel & Restaurant Employees
Local 19 (Seasons Restaurant), 277 NLRB 842, 843 (1985). Accord-
ingly, the Respondent’s motion to strike is denied.
2 In the 1970s, it appears that the Union, at one point, had suc-
ceeded in getting the Respondent to pay a ‘‘rate to rate’’ increase
on a promotion.
3 Separate collective-bargaining agreements cover each of the units
at the Respondent’s other three plants in Connecticut.
16, 1990, as to the steps the Respondent would take towards
adjusting hundreds of grievances filed by unit employees.
Those grievances protested the amount of the raise given the
respective grievants by the Respondent, after it had rated
each as to how able he or she was in operating various types
of machinery.
The hearing was held in Hartford, Connecticut, in Feb-
ruary 1992. On the entire record, including my observation
of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after consideration of
the briefs filed by the General Counsel1 and the Respondent,
I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent builds aircraft engines and related equip-
ment at its plants in Connecticut. In its operations annually,
it meets the Board’s nonretail jurisdictional standard.
The Union is a labor organization as defined in the Act.
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
The Respondent has four plants in Connecticut. The Union
represents, in four separate units, the production and mainte-
nance employees in those plants. This case involves the dis-
cussions concerning the many grievances filed by employees
at one of those plants, the one in Middletown.
Until recent years, the collective-bargaining agreements
covering the Middletown employees had provided for a wage
scale which contained grades 0 to 11. Grade 11 was the low-
est grade, 0 the highest. Each grade had levels. An employer
in a grade moved to a higher level therein every 20 weeks,
when that employee received an automatic 10-cent increase,
until the maximum level for that grade was reached. An em-
ployee could also receive a merit increase, the amount of
which was limited only by the maximum wage rate for that
employee’s grade.
In 1990, hundreds of unit employees were each promoted
to the next labor grade when a new work assignment pro-
gram, discussed further below, went into effect. The collec-
tive-bargaining agreement provided that an employee shall
receive a 20-cent-per-hour wage increase for such an upgrade
and that is the amount the Respondent gave each of these up-
graded employees. Because the new work assignment pro-
gram materially changed the unit job descriptions, many of
the promoted employees felt that they should have received
what they termed ‘‘rate to rate’’ increases and not just the
20-cent-per-hour increase given them. To put these matters
in focus, some background is needed.
For many years, the Union has sought in contract negotia-
tions a provision whereby the Respondent would be required
to pay an employee, who was promoted to a higher labor
grade, a rate in that grade at the same level that that em-
ployee was at in the labor grade from which he or she was
promoted. Thus, the Union sought to get for an employee,
who is promoted from midlevel in labor grade 8 to labor
grade 7, the midlevel rate for labor grade 7. In seeking such
an upgrade, the Union used the phrase ‘‘rate to rate.’’2
The Respondent rejected the Union’s efforts to secure a
‘‘rate to rate’’ provision. The contract, as noted above, pro-
vides for a 20-cent-per-hour raise for an upgrade. That con-
tract covers the employees at the Middletown plant and was
effective from 1988 to December 1991.3 In the negotiations
leading up to the contract and apparently for some time after
it had been in effect, the Respondent and the Union had been
studying ways to consolidate the large number of job de-
scriptions for the unit employees, with a view towards broad-
ening their job functions and towards giving the Respondent
more flexibility in making work assignments, in furtherance
of improving the Respondent’s competitive position. This
study resulted in a program, called ‘‘Job Design.’’ In one
part of the Middletown plant, it has resulted in reducing the
number of job descriptions from 120 to just 18. ‘‘Job De-
sign’’ contemplates that employees would be trained to per-
form a variety of functions and that the training process
would be part of their jobs.
The Job Design program was first put into effect in Mid-
dletown in March 1990 when it was applied to employees in
Castings and Forgings. Many of these employees were given
a promotion and received the contractual 20-cent-hour in-
crease. Hundreds of them, however, filed grievances, claim-
ing that they were entitled to a ‘‘rate to rate’’ increase by
virtue of the additional responsibilities they had under Job
Design.
The collective-bargaining agreement does not provide for
arbitration. It does, however, obligate the Respondent to dis-
cuss, at several steps, grievances with the Union. When the
Job Design program was expanded into the Weldments sec-
tion of the Middletown plant in July 1990, hundreds more
employees were promoted and each was given the 20-cent-
per-hour contract increase. They too filed Job Design griev-
ances. The time spent in processing each of the hundreds of
Job Design grievances ‘‘overwhelmed’’ the operations at
Middletown.
Those operations are the responsibility of the general man-
ager at Middletown, George Katsarakes. He, however, played
no role in the discussions with the Union as to the Job De-
sign grievances. The two operation managers under him and
the director of human resources at the Middletown plant did.
They are respectively, Robert Whitty, Ronald Christensen,
and Todd Barnett.
1128 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4 Union Steward Meglin testified that the Job Design program was
concerned with developing skills and that to confuse it with a pro-
gram to evaluate job performance is equivalent to ‘‘mixing apples
and oranges.’’
In early August 1990 (all dates hereinafter are for 1990
unless stated otherwise), Barnett told Whitty and Christensen
to talk with the union stewards in their respective sections
in an effort to facilitate handling the Job Design grievances.
Christensen met with stewards Lloyd Williams and Ron
Guarino, telling them that he heard them ‘‘loud and clear,’’
in referring to the numerous grievances. He also acknowl-
edged that there were unit employees deserving of more than
the raise they received.
The other operations manager, Whitty, held a similar
meeting, at about the same time, with Union Stewards Kip
Peterson and Ralph Aiello. A third steward in that section,
Thomas Meglin, was not in that day. Whitty told Peterson
and Aiello that he would like to see the grievances with-
drawn so that they could address this ‘‘hell of a problem.’’
Aiello told him that the grievances would not be withdrawn
and that any agreement would have to be in writing. Whitty
told him that that would not be a problem.
Arrangements were then made for the meeting, as to
which conflicting accounts have been given.
B. The August 16 Meeting
Present for the Respondent were Operations Managers
Whitty and Christensen, Middletown Director of Human Re-
sources Todd Barnett, and Senior Personnel Adviser Bob
Swensen. For the Union, its President Dave Durbin, its Vice
President Doug Johnson, and Stewards Peterson, Aiello, Wil-
liams, and Meglin.
Christensen started the discussion by saying, as he had to
two stewards previously, that the Respondent hears the
Union ‘‘loud and clear.’’ He asked what it would take to re-
solve the grievances and was greeted with shouts of ‘‘rate to
rate.’’ As to the ensuing discussion, the accounts of the Gen-
eral Counsel’s witnesses and those of Respondent vary.
The six union participants testified for the General Coun-
sel in varying styles. Thus, the Union’s president, Durbin,
who was ill, participated very little and tended to summarize
the discussions; Steward Meglin had come to the meeting
prepared with a written agenda; in his testimony, he gave an
expanded and vivid account; Steward Petersen also testified
in detail; the accounts of steward Aiello and Union Vice
President Johnson tended to emphasize the points they made
at the meeting; Steward Williams’ account noted that Meglin
and Aiello did most of the talking for the Union and noted
also that ‘‘rate-to-rate,’’ ‘‘pigeonholed’’ employees and retro-
activity were discussed, and that Whitty agreed to put the
discussion on these matters in writing until Barnett ‘‘stepped
in and said he didn’t like that or words to that effect.’’
Meglin’s and Aiello’s accounts were detailed as to the
points under discussion. The substance of their accounts and
those of the other witnesses for the General Counsel is that
Whitty and Christensen agreed to the following items: (a)
line supervisors would evaluate the individual employees
solely on their ability to operate the various pieces of ma-
chinery,4 (b) some skilled employees could go ‘‘rate-to-rate’’
(i.e., that there would be no cap set, other that the maximum
for a labor grade, as to the amount of a wage increase an
employee could receive as a consequence of the evaluation
to be done), (c) special weight would be given in the evalua-
tion of employees who had been pigeonholed on a job in
their having been assigned for years to one machine so that
they had not had the opportunity to develop skills on other
machines, (d) the increases to be given the employees in the
Weldments area would be retroactive to July 30 and that an
effort would be made to get retroactively for those employ-
ees who went into Job Design in March, (e) business unit
managers under Whitty and Christensen would review the
charts used by the line supervisors in evaluating the skills so
as to protect against supervisors making unfair evaluations,
(f) the operations managers would hold meetings with groups
of unit employees within a few days to outline to them the
points just noted, and (g) there would be another meeting
with the Union so that the Union could be assured that ‘‘ev-
erything was going according to schedule’’ as it had doubts
that the Respondent could meet the target date the Respond-
ent set for itself, September 10, to complete the evaluations
as planned. When the Union asked that the agreement on
these seven items be reduced to writing and signed, Whitty
agreed but Barnett, according to the General Counsel’s wit-
nesses, demurred saying that there was no need to do so. The
Union insisted, saying that they did not trust the Respondent.
At that point, Operations Manager Christensen stated that
they could trust him as he had never lied to them. The Union
then caucused. On their return, they said that they accepted
Christensen’s word.
The Respondent’s witnesses contested the testimony that
agreement was reached on the items, listed above. It con-
tends that there were confused discussions at the meeting
among various of the participants and that, at various points,
the topics of retroactivity, possible supervisory bias in mak-
ing evaluations, rate-to-rate, and pigeonholing came up but
that all that resulted was an agreement to agree. Their testi-
mony also reflected that Whitty and Christensen would in-
form the unit employees, within a day or two, of the sub-
stance of the meeting itself. Whitty, Christensen, and Barnett
testified for the Respondent. Senior Personnel Adviser
Swensen did not testify.
The credibility resolution respecting the differences be-
tween the accounts of the General Counsel’s witnesses and
those of the Respondent is contained in a separate section
below.
C. The Meetings with the Employees
Whitty and Christensen had planned to hold meetings with
the Middletown employees to give them a progress report as
to the state of the Respondent’s business and they decided
to preface those meetings with an outline of the topics dis-
cussed at the August 16 meeting. They held several group
meetings of the employees.
Union Steward Meglin attended the first such meeting
which Whitty held. He testified that Whitty did not talk of
‘‘any of the facts’’ of the August 16 meeting and that when
he, Meglin, asked about the items discussed, Whitty’s re-
sponses were so short that he had to be pressed further. Thus
Meglin testified that, when he asked Whitty to tell the em-
ployees about the factors to be used in the evaluations,
Whitty responded only ‘‘Job knowledge’’ and that he
Meglin, had to question Whitty specifically about the
pigeonholing issue and each of the other items.
1129UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP.
5 The testimony given by one of the Respondent’s witnesses, Mi-
chael Paul, a business unit manager, indicates that the Respondent
may have been engaged in a charade in asking the Union, on August
16, to put the Job Design grievances on hold. His account seems to
reflect that, prior to August 16, the Respondent had decided to give
the Middletown employees the same raises their counterparts at its
other plants had been given and that he and the other other business
unit managers had been given then a 3-week time target to meet to
get their evaluation into the Respondent’s main office.
Union Steward Peterson testified that Whitty ‘‘kind of
skirted the questions.’’ Union Steward Williams’ testimony is
to the effect that Christensen’s report to the employees was
also short and lacking in details.
One of the Respondent’s business unit managers, Michael
Paul, attended a meeting Whitty held with the employees. He
testified that he was surprised that Whitty did not talk about
the job design grievances ‘‘that much’’ and that instead
talked about the state of the business. Paul related further
that, during that question and answer part of the meeting,
Whitty was asked questions about whether raises would be
capped, whether employees would be penalized because they
have been running one machine so well, as to whether some
supervisors have ‘‘pets’’ and about retroactivity. His testi-
mony disclosed little as to what Whitty’s responses to most
of those questions were.
Whitty’s account of those meetings is that he was asked
‘‘a loaded question’’ as to retroactivity and that Meglin was
trying to put words in his mouth. Christensen’s account of
his meetings with the employees under him reflects that he
used notes he prepared. These contain the statement that
‘‘the Union and [the Respondent] worked out the details of
an agreement on the present Job Design problem.’’ When
asked on cross-examination what those details were, he re-
plied that the Union agreed to give the Respondent 3 weeks
to come up with something better.
D. The September 7 Meeting
On September 7, the union representatives met with the
Respondent’s operations manager for an ‘‘update’’ as to how
the Respondent would evaluate the abilities of the unit em-
ployees. The mood of the participants was ‘‘tense.’’ A chart
was shown to the union representatives. They were told that
such a chart was used to evaluate each employee and that
those charts were reviewed with the union stewards. Aiello,
one of the stewards present, challenged that statement. A
business unit manager acknowledged shortly afterwards that
the stewards had not been consulted when the charts were
used.
As the meeting progressed, it became clear to the Union
that the Respondent had decided that there would be a max-
imum raise of 50 cents an hour, which would include the 20-
cent-per-hour raises already given. Further, the Union was
advised that there would be no retroactivity. The Union
learned too that no allowances were made for employees
who had been ‘‘pigeonholed’’ in the same job for years.
Union Steward Meglin, in angry terms, told the Respond-
ent’s representatives that they had broken every commitment
they had made and that they were liars, cheats, and thieves.
The Respondent’s director of human resources, Bennett, stat-
ed that the Respondent had gone as far as it could. Meglin
walked out of the meeting and the other union representa-
tives followed him.
On September 10, the Respondent made effective the wage
increases pursuant to the formula it adopted.
E. Credibility
I credit the accounts of the General Counsel’s witnesses
that there was an agreement reached on August 16 as to a
number of specific steps the Respondent would take towards
adjusting the voluminous Job Design grievances. I reject the
Respondent’s contention that all that was agreed to that day
was that the parties would reach an agreement.
Operation Manager Christensen’s notes state that the
Union and the Respondent had, on August 16, worked out
the details of an agreement. The vivid accounts given by the
General Counsel’s witnesses clearly demonstrate that a de-
tailed accord was reached. Their outrage, as expressed on
September 7, did not stem from some oversight by the Re-
spondent in expounding some type of ‘‘agreement to agree’’
but obviously was voiced at the Respondent’s wholesale re-
jection of the terms of the understanding reached at the Au-
gust 16 meeting. I note too an apparent contradiction in the
account given by Operations Manager Whitty. He testified
that he told the union representatives that an employee could
not go ‘‘rate-to-rate’’ as the Respondent had made no deci-
sion thereon. Obviously, if no decision was made there was
no decision that employees would not go ‘‘rate-to-rate.’’ Nor
was I impressed with his testimony that he was being asked
‘‘loaded’’ questions at the meetings he held with employees
after the August 16 meetings.5
The credited testimony establishes that the Respondent had
agreed with the Union, on August 16, as to the items (a)
through (h) set out in section B above. It is clear that the
Respondent has not honored that commitment.
F. Analysis
Section 8(d) of the Act defines the duty to bargain collec-
tively as the mutual obligation of an employer and the em-
ployees’ representative to confer in good faith as to wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. The
evidence in this case discloses that the Respondent has pat-
ently failed to fulfill its obligations in that regard by having
lead the Union to believe it had wanted and had reached an
accord to resolve a difficult grievance problem and by pro-
ceeding thereafter on a unilateral course of action diamet-
rically opposite to the agreement it had made as to the proce-
dures to be following to adjust the Job Design grievances.
In Embossing Printers, 268 NLRB 710, 717–718 (1984), the
Board held that the employer’s disregard of an agreement,
during contract negotiations, to defer implementation of a
disciplinary system arrived at during the discussions, was
violative of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. Analogously, the Re-
spondent’s disregard of the accord it reached with the Union
on August 16 was similarly violative. I therefore find that the
Respondent, by having reneged on the commitments it made
with the Union on August 16, has failed to bargain collec-
tively with the Union as required by Section 8(d) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
1130 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
6 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec-
ommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
7 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court
of appeals, the words in the notice reading ‘‘Posted by Order of the
National Labor Relations Board’’ shall read ‘‘Posted Pursuant to a
Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order
of the National Labor Relations Board.’’
2. The Union is a labor organization as defined in Section
2(5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent has engaged in an unfair labor practice
as defined in Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by having
failed to honor the commitments it gave the Union on Au-
gust 16, 1990, towards resolving numerous Job Design griev-
ances.
4. The foregoing unfair labor practice affects commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in an un-
fair labor practice, I find it necessary to order it to cease and
desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The Respondent shall, unless the Union notifies the Re-
spondent otherwise, revise the charts it used between August
16 and September 7, 1990, to evaluate its employees’ abili-
ties so as to make allowances for transferable skills pos-
sessed by unit employees who, prior thereto, had been per-
forming essentially only one operation for a protracted pe-
riod. Thereupon, the Respondent shall devise and apply a
formula to determine the raises to be given to the unit em-
ployees as a result of these revised evaluations. The formula
will limit the amount of the raises only by the maximum rate
in the respective labor grades. The resultant raises will be
retroactive to July 30, 1990, for the Weldment employees at
the Middletown facility.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended6
ORDER
The Respondent, Pratt & Whitney Aircraft, a Division of
United Technologies Corporation, Middletown, Connecticut,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing to honor any agreement reached with Local
Lodge #700, District 91, International Association of Ma-
chinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL–CIO (the Union) to
resolve grievances filed by employees at the Respondent’s
Middletown, Connecticut plant as to the impact of the Job
Design program on their employment status.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar-
anteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Submit for review by the Union revised evaluations of
employee job skills at the Middletown plant, as of July 30,
1990, with credit for transferable skills of employees who,
prior thereto, had principally performed one operation.
(b) Devise a formula to establish the raises to be given
those employees as a result of those revised evaluations with-
out any limit thereon other than the maximum labor grade
rate, these raises to be retroactive to July 30, 1990, for the
Weldment employees at the Middletown facility.
(c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board
or its agents for examination and copying, all payroll records,
social security payment records, timecards, personnel records
and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the
amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its plant in Middletown, Connecticut, copies of
the attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’7 Copies of the no-
tice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region
34, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized rep-
resentative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous places including all places where notices to employ-
ees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has
taken to comply.