Valley Inventory Service, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1989

295 N.L.R.B. 1163 (N.L.R.B. 1989)

VALLEY INVENTORY SERVICE 1163
Valley Inventory Service , Inc. and Jeffrey Link,
d/b/a Accurate Auditors Assoc. and Jeffrey
Link, d/b/a Inventory Audit Systems, a single
employer; Pat Millestadt , d/b/a Auditors Plus,
joint employers and Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers , Local 490, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, AFL-
CIO. Case 20-CA-22311
July 31, 1989
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
HIGGINS AND DEVANEY
On April 25, 1989 , Administrative Law Judge
Jerrold H. Shapiro issued the attached decision.
The Acting General Counsel filed exceptions and a
supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed 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 brief and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondents, Valley In-
ventory Service , Inc. and Jeffrey Link , d/b/a Ac-
curate Auditors Assoc. and Jeffrey Link, d/b/a In-
ventory Audit Systems , a Single Employer; and
Pat Millestadt, d/b/a Auditors Plus, Joint Employ-
ers, Fairfield, California, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns , shall take the action set forth in
the Order.
Donald R. Rendall, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Theresa R. Fritz, Esq. (Jordan & Smith), for the Respond-
ents.
William Casey Sawyer, for the Union.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JERROLD L . SHAPIRO , Administrative Law Judge. The
hearing in this case held on February 22, 1989 , is based
on an unfair labor practice charge filed on November 10,
1988, by Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers, Local 490, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO (Union), and an amended complaint
issued on February 8, 1989 ,1 on behalf of the General
1 The charge was amended on November 22, 1988 , again amended on
December 12 , 1988, and a complaint issued December 20, 1988.
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (Board),
by the Regional Director of the Board , Region 20, alleg-
ing that Valley Inventory Service , Inc. (Respondent
Valley Inventory), Jeffrey Link d/b/a Accurate Audi-
tors Assoc. (Respondent Accurate Auditors), Jeffrey
Link d/b/a Inventory Audit Systems (Respondent In-
ventory Audit), and Pat Millestadt d/b/a Auditors Plus
(Respondent Auditors Plus) (collectively Respondents),
engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations
Act (Act), by failing and refusing, since on or about
August 11, 1988, to furnish to the Union certain informa-
tion requested by the Union, which the complaint alleges
was necessary and relevant to the Union's performance
of its duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the Respondents ' auditors . On February 22,
1989, at the start of the hearing in this case , Respond-
ents' verbally answered the amended complaint and in
their answer denied the commission of the alleged unfair
labor practices.
On the entire record , from my observation of the de-
meanor of the only witness, Casey Sawyer, and having
considered the Respondents ' closing statement and the
posthearing brief filed by the General Counsel, I make
the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE RESPONDENTS' BUSINESS AND THE UNION'S
STATUS AS A LABOR ORGANIZATION2
Respondents, whose places of business are located in
Fairfield, California, have been at all times material en-
gaged in the business of conducting internal inventory
audits for retail stores. During the time material, Re-
spondent Valley Inventory, Respondent Accurate Audi-
tors, and Respondent Inventory Audit have been a
single-integrated business enterprise and a single employ-
er within the meaning of the Act . During the time mate-
rial, Respondent Valley Inventory, Respondent Accurate
Auditors, and Respondent Inventory Audit have been
the joint employers of the employees of Respondent
Auditors Plus.
During the calendar year ending December 31, 1987,
Respondent Valley Inventory, Respondent Accurate
Auditors , and Respondent Inventory Audit, provided
services valued in excess of $50,000 for Longs Drugs,
Inc., Orchard Supply Hardware , Inc., and Bill 's Drugs,
Inc., enterprises within the State of California that are di-
rectly engaged in interstate commerce . Respondents at
all times material have been employers engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
The Union is now , and has been at all times material
herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(5) of the Act.
2 The findings herein are based upon allegations contained in the
amended complaint which were admitted by Respondents' answer to the
complaint.
295 NLRB No. 140
1164 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE
A. The Evidence
Respondents perform internal inventory audits for
retail stores . They assign teams of employees , classified
as auditors, to go to their customers ' places of business to
conduct inventory audits . On December 29, 1987, the
Board 's Acting Regional Director for Region 20 in Case
20-RC-15764, certified that a majority of valid ballots
had been cast for the Union in a Board-conducted repre-
sentation election held in a unit of Respondents ' auditors
and further certified that the Union was the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the employees in
the following appropriate unit:
All regular part-time auditors employed by the [Re-
spondents] in and out of [Respondents '] Fairfield,
California, facility; excluding all other employees,
office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
On January 23, 1988,$ the Union's secretary-treasurer,
William Casey Sawyer, wrote Respondents' agent, Jef-
frey Link,4 requesting that Respondents commence col-
lective-bargaining negotiations and that Link contact the
Union immediately to schedule a date and place for the
negotiations . Sawyer also informed Link that in order to
adequately prepare for the collective-bargaining negotia-
tions the Union was asking Respondents to supply it
with the following information:
A list of all current employees, including their
social security number, address and phone number,
rates of pay , hours of employment and copies of the
description and level of benefits of any and all bene-
fits the employees receive such as, but not limited
to, health and welfare , insurance and/or pension.
On February 10 Sawyer wrote Pat Millestadt, the
owner of Respondent Auditors Plus, and informed her
the Union had not received a response to its contract ne-
gotiation and information requests set forth in Sawyer's
January 23 letter to Link and warned Millestadt that if
Respondents failed to respond to his January 23 letter
and furnish the requested information immediately, the
Union would take appropriate action including the filing
of an unfair labor practice charge with the Board or eco-
nomic action.
No evidence was presented showing whether, or to
what extent, Respondents furnished the Union with the
information requested in Sawyer's above-described Janu-
ary 23 request.5 However, while testifying about another
matter, Sawyer testified that at a March 25 meeting that
Respondents' attorney, Mark Jordan , gave Sawyer a list
of employees' names and addresses; he also testified that
a All dates hereinafter, unless stated otherwise, refer to the year 1988.
*The parties stipulated that during the time material , Jeffrey Link was
the owner of Respondents Accurate Auditors and Inventory Audit and
was the president of Respondent Valley Inventory, and further stipulated
that at all times Link acted as an agent for all the Respondents.
5 There is no evidence to support the General Counsel 's contention
that it was not until Attorney Jordan 's August 9 letter, infra , that Re.
spondents responded to Sawyer 's January 23 information request.
when Attorney Jordan handed him the list he advised
Sawyer he could not vouch for its accuracy or complete-
ness.
On August 9 Respondents' attorney, Jordan, wrote
Sawyer that the next negotiation session would be held
at Attorney Jordan's office the following week and en-
closed a list of 138 of Respondents' employees, with their
addresses and hourly rates of pay.
On August 11 Union Secretary-Treasurer Sawyer
wrote Attorney Jordan and, after acknowledging receipt
of Jordan's August 9 letter with the enclosed informa-
tion, informed Jordan, as follows:
Please be advised the information you supplied
was not the information that I requested, and you
promised to provide . The Union's request was very
specific and very clear . The information we request-
ed was as follows:
1. Copy of the Company's health and welfare
plan.
2. Information on the Company 's vacation policy.
3. Social Security Numbers of all employees in
the unit represented by Local 490.
4. The telephone numbers of all employees in the
unit represented by Local 490.
This information was requested at our meeting on
March 25 , 1988. You stated at that time that you
would supply us the information and indicated that
you would do so within a period of approximately
one week . Not only have you not provided the in-
formation , but you have consistently tried to stall
negotiations and frustrate the effort of good faith
bargaining . You have done this by failing to fulfill
your legal obligations, failure to fulfill your verbal
commitment and by unilaterally cancelling meetings
that have been set, even though we have been more
than willing to adjust our time schedule to meet
your requirements. Any reasonable person would
conclude that you are deliberately, and with malice
and forethought bargaining in bad faith.
You know full well that Local 490 requires the
requested information before we can formulate spe-
cific proposals. Consider this letter as a formal
demand that you provide the above information
within five (5) calendar days of the date of this
letter.
No evidence was presented showing whether in fact,
as alleged in Sawyer's above-described August 11 letter,
that at a March 25 meeting Sawyer requested , and Attor-
ney Jordan promised to provide, the information request-
ed in Sawyer's August 11 information request.
Sawyer's August 11 information request to Attorney
Jordan went unanswered , so on November 10 the Union
filed the initial unfair labor practice charge in this case
alleging Respondent Valley Inventory violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing to provide the Union
with information relevant to collective bargaining.
On December 12, 8 days before the issuance of the ini-
tial complaint in this proceeding , Respondents ' attorney,
Theresa Fritz, wrote Sawyer, as follows:
VALLEY INVENTORY SERVICE 1165
Pursuant to our conversation on December 2,
1988, please find enclosed the information requested
by you in the above referenced matter. Find en-
closed the names, addresses , social security numbers
and telephone numbers of Valley Inventory's em-
ployees represented by Local 490 . I have also en-
closed the Company's health and welfare plan and
vacation policy.
It is my understanding that you agreed to discuss
this matter with your attorney upon receipt of the
enclosed information . I am hopeful that, after re-
viewing the information, it will be recommended
that the pending ULP charge against my client be
dismissed and a Complaint not be issued.
Should you have any questions regarding the en-
closed information , please do not hesitate to tele-
phone this office. Thank you for your cooperation
in this matter.
Regarding Respondents ' health and welfare plan, At-
torney Fritz ' December 12 letter did not enclose a copy
of the plan, but enclosed the following statement:
The Company offers an HMO to any employee
who has been employed at least (6) six consecutive
months with the Company and who works a mini-
mum of (20) twenty hours per week . Upon enroll-
ment of the employee in the HMO, the Company
pays one-half of the monthly fee.
Regarding Respondents' vacation policy, Attorney
Fritz' December 12 letter enclosed the following state-
ment:
The Company does not have a conventional vaca-
tion policy . It does, however, have an employee
bonus plan whereby an employee with a perfect on-
time attendance record will earn an additional 2%
of his/her wage . This bonus is computed quarterly.
Employees will often utilize this bonus during slow
periods when work is unavailable.
Regarding the employees ' names, addresses , social se-
curity numbers , and telephone numbers, Attorney Fritz'
December 12 letter enclosed a list of 72 employees with
their addresses, social security numbers, phone numbers
for 31 of the employees , an explanation that 7 of the
others had no telephone , and with respect to the remain-
ing employees explained that, "due to incomplete em-
ployee applications telephone numbers for all employees
are not available."
On December 28 Sawyer responded to Attorney Fritz'
December 12 letter, as follows:
The information you provided with your letter
dated December 12, 1988 is inadequate.
First, the information you provided on the health
and welfare plan does not state which HMO's are
offered to the employees . It also fails to state the
appropriate rate for single, married , and married
with dependents . There could be several rates for
the latter category. I would also request to be ad-
vised as to how many of the employees, either on a
number basis or a percentage basis, are enrolled in
the HMO through the Company's offer.
Second , regarding the vacation/bonus plan.
Please provide information as to the number of
people and the amounts received under this plan for
the last four quarters.
Third, you [sic] client's contention that all tele-
phone numbers are unavailable , is simply not believ-
able considering the primary method that the em-
ployer has for contacting the employees is by tele-
phone. You provided thirty-one (31) telephone
numbers out of a list of seventy-two (72) people,
which Represents only forty-three percent (43%) of
the employees listed . This is wholly inadequate.
Further, since there is a considerable turnover in
the employees, you have not identified when this
list was compiled , and whether it was up to date as
of the date of your letter. The company certainly
has more than 43% of the employees telephone
numbers . The company' s primary method of con-
tacting employees for work is by telephone, and to
believe that they do not have a complete list of tele-
phone numbers for message phone numbers would
be to defy all logic.
The employer has done everything possible to
frustrate the efforts of obtaining information which
we legitimately have the right to obtain . Further,
they have done everything possible to frustrate the
intent and application of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
Lastly, late in the afternoon on the day prior to the
hearing in this case , February 21, 1989, Attorney Fritz,
on behalf of Respondents, delivered to Sawyer 's office
additional information , not described in the record, con-
cerning Respondents ' bonus and health and welfare plans
and the employees' telephone numbers.
B. Discussion
The amended complaint alleges that since August 11
Respondents, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act, have failed and refused to furnish the Union
with the following information : A copy of the Respond-
ents' health and welfare plan; information about the Re-
spondents ' vacation policy; and the social security and
telephone numbers of all of the bargaining unit employ-
ees, except, the complaint alleges, on December 12 Re-
spondents furnished the Union with social security num-
bers . In their answer to the amended complaint, Re-
spondents denied these allegations . The amended com-
plaint further alleges that the aforesaid information, the
information contained in the Union 's August 11 informa-
tion request, "is necessary for, and relevant to, the
Union's performance of its function as the exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative " of the Respondents'
bargaining unit employees . In their answer to the amend-
ed complaint, Respondents admitted this allegation (Tr.
8, 9; see also Tr. 32). I therefore find that all of the infor-
mation requested by the Union in its August 11 informa-
tion request is relevant and necessary to the Union in
1166 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
carrying out its statutory duties and responsibilities as the
employees ' collective-bargaining representative.
An employer is required by Section 8(a)(5) of the Act
to furnish information requested by a union that is the
bargaining representative of its employees , if there is a
probability that the information is relevant and necessary
to the union in carrying out its statutory duties and re-
sponsibilities as the employees ' bargaining representative.
NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 437 (1967).
An unreasonable delay in furnishing such information is
as much a violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act as a re-
fusal to furnish the information at all. Bundy Corp., 292
NLRB 671 (1989); Operating Engineers Local 12, 237
NLRB 1556, 1558-1559 (1978). For, as the Board ex-
plained in B. F. Diamond Construction Co., 163 NLRB
161, 176 (1976), enfd. 401 F.2d 462 (5th Cir. 1969):
The same reasons that require reasonable diligence
in scheduling meetings require reasonable diligence
in furnishing information essential to intelligent bar-
gaining . For without such information the opportu-
nity for meaningful bargaining is stifled, and the
effect of delay in supplying such information, like
[the Company's] delay in meeting, was to prevent
the likelihood of significant progress toward agree-
ment in the critical months following the Union's
certification.
As described supra, on December 29, 1987, the Union
was certified by the Board as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of Respondents' auditors and
during 1988 bargained without success with Respondents
over the terms of a collective-bargaining agreement to
cover those employees . In connection with this bargain-
ing, as described supra, on August 11 the Union sent a
letter to Respondent 's representative asking that Re-
spondents furnish them with the following information:
Social security and telephone numbers of Respondents'
employees represented by the Union, "a copy of the
Company's health and welfare plan," and "information
on the Company 's vacation policy." In its August 11
demand letter, the Union explained it was requesting this
information in order to formulate its collective-bargain-
ing proposals and complained Respondent previously
had failed to furnish the information to the Union despite
the fact that at a March meeting the Union's secretary-
treasurer had asked for the information and, in response,
Respondents ' attorney had promised to furnish the Union
with the information.
It was not until 4 months after the Union's August 11
information request and over a month after the Union's
unfair labor practice charge was filed in this case that on
December 12 Respondents answered the Union's August
11 information request . In their December 12 response,
as described supra , Respondents furnished the Union
with all the employees ' social security numbers; fur-
nished the Union with the employees ' telephone numbers
which it possessed;° explained to the Union that Re-
6 described supra, Union Secretary-Treasurer Sawyer in his Decem-
ber 12 letter to Respondents ' attorney, Jordan, expressed disbelief that
Respondents possessed less than 50 percent of their employees' telephone
numbers. There is a lack of evidence , however, to warrant the inference
spondents did not provide the employees with vacation
benefits; and informed the Union that the employees
were covered by a health and welfare plan in the form
of an HMO , but failed to furnish the Union with a copy
of that plan as had been requested .' Respondents never
offered an explanation to the Union for their failure to
furnish the Union with a copy of the Company's health
and welfare plan or for their delay in explaining to the
Union that the Company 's employees receive no vaca-
tion benefits, or for their delay in furnishing the Union
with the employees ' social security and telephone num-
bers . Likewise, during the hearing in this case , Respond-
ents presented no evidence justifying their aforesaid con-
duct.
Considering Respondents ' failure to offer an explana-
tion for its 4-month delay in complying with the Union's
August 11 information request for the employees' tele-
phone and social security numbers and for the Compa-
ny's vacation policy; considering that this information
was furnished to the Union only after the Union filed its
unfair labor practice charge in this case and when the is-
suance of a complaint based on that charge appeared to
be imminent; and considering that the nature of the re-
quested information shows that the request was condu-
cive to a relatively quick response , I find Respondents' 4-
month delay in furnishing the Union with this informa-
tion constituted an unreasonable delay and that Respond-
ents deliberately failed and refused to furnish this infor-
mation at an earlier date in an effort to impede the
Union 's efforts to prepare for contract negotiations. I
also find that under the circumstances , including Re-
spondents ' failure to offer an explanation for their con-
duct, the record warrants the further finding that Re-
spondents' refusal to furnish to the Union , as requested, a
copy of the Company's health and welfare plan was a
deliberate act; done to impede the Union 's effort to pre-
pare for contract negotiations.
Having found the Union 's August 11 request to Re-
spondents for the unit employees ' telephone and social
security numbers, for information about the Company's
vacation policy, and for a copy of the Company's health
and welfare plan was information necessary and relevant
to the Union in carrying out its statutory duties and re-
sponsibilities as the employees ' certified bargaining repre-
sentative ; having found Respondents failed and refused
to comply with the Union 's August 11 request for a copy
of the Company 's health and welfare plan ; having found
Respondents failed and refused to furnish to the Union,
within a reasonable period of time, the employees' tele-
phone and social security numbers and the information
concerning the Company's vacation policy; and having
found Respondents deliberately engaged in the aforesaid
conduct in an effort to impede the Union 's efforts to pre-
pare for contract negotiations , I find Respondents violat-
that on December 12 Respondents failed to furnish the Union with all the
employees' telephone numbers which they had in their possession.
T As described supra, on the eve of the hearing in this case Respond-
ents furnished the Union with certain additional information including in-
formation concerning Respondents' health and welfare plan. There is no
showing, however , that a copy of Respondents ' health and welfare plan
was included in this information
VALLEY INVENTORY SERVICE 1167
ed Section 8(aX5) and (1) of the Act by engaging in the
aforesaid conduct.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the
entire record , I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondents are employers engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All regular part-time auditors employed by Re-
spondents in and out of Respondents' Fairfield, Califor-
nia facility; excluding all other employees, office clerical
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act.
4. At all times material the Union has been the exclu-
sive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid
bargaining unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By their failure and refusal to comply with the
Union's August 11, 1988 request that they furnish the
Union with a copy of the Company's health and welfare
plan and by their failure and refusal to comply within a
reasonable period of time with the Union's August 11,
1988 request that they furnish the Union with employees'
telephone and social security numbers and information
concerning the Company's vacation policy, Respondents
have violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in unfair
labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act, I shall recommend that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act, which shall include an
extension of the Union's certification year.
The law is settled that when an employer's unfair
labor practices intervene and prevent the employees' cer-
tified bargaining agent from enjoying a free period of a
year after certification to establish a bargaining relation-
ship, it is entitled to resume its free period after the ter-
mination of the litigation involving the employer's unfair
labor practices. Mar-Jac Poultry Co., 136 NLRB 785
(1962). In the instant case, on December 29, 1987, the
Union was certified by the Board as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of an appropriate unit of Respond-
ents' employees. I have found that during the certifica-
tion year Respondents refused to bargain with the Union
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by en-
gaging in the following conduct: refusing since August
11 to supply the Union with a copy of the Company's
health and welfare plan, and refusing for a period of 4
months since August 11 to supply the Union with the
unit employees' telephone and social security numbers
and with an explanation of the Company's vacation
policy. I have further found that Respondents deliberate-
ly failed and refused to supply the aforesaid information
to the Union in an effort to impede the Union 's efforts to
prepare for contract negotiations . In view of these cir-
cumstances , I conclude that a 5-month extension of the
certification year is appropriate . Cf. Colfor, Inc., 282
NLRB 1173 ( 1987), and Dominguez Valley Hospital, 287
NLRB 149 (1987); such a 5-month extension will provide
the parties with a reasonable interval in which to resume
negotiations and possibly reach an agreement , without
unduly saddling employees with a bargaining representa-
tive they may no longer support . Thus, I shall recom-
mend that the certification be extended for an additional
5 months.8
On the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and on the
entire record , and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I
issue the following recommended9
ORDER
The Respondents, Valley Inventory Service, Inc., Jef-
frey Link d/b/a Accurate Auditors Assoc., Jeffrey Link
d/b/a Inventory Audit Systems, and Pat Millestadt
d/b/a Auditors Plus, Fairfield, California, their officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with
the Union by failing and refusing, on request, to furnish
the Union information which is necessary for, and rele-
vant to, the Union's performance of its function as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the following appropriate unit:
All regular part-time auditors employed by the Re-
spondents in and out of Respondents' Fairfield,
California facility; excluding all other employees,
office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
(b) 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) Promptly comply with the Union's requests for rel-
evant information necessary for the Union's performance
as bargaining representative of the unit employees.
(b) Furnish the Union with a copy of the health and
welfare plan covering the unit employees.
(c) After compliance with paragraph 2(b) above, bar-
gain in good faith with the Union and for 5 months
thereafter as if the initial year of certification had not ex-
pired.
8 In extending the certification year I considered G. J. Aigner Co., 257
NLRB 669 (1981 ) There, the record revealed "the fact that numerous
bargaining sessions actually took place " (id. at fn . 4), whereas, here there
was no such evidence . Quite the opposite, there are indications here that
only a few bargaining sessions actually took place and that bargaining
came to a virtual standstill because of Respondents ' unlawful failure and
refusal to comply with the Union's August 11 information demand.
9 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec . 102 46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions , and recommended
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 pur-
poses.
1168 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(d) Post at its facilities in Fairfield, California, copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."10 Copies of
the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director
for Region 20, after being signed by the Respondents'
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Re-
spondents immediately upon receipt and maintained for
60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ents 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 20 date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondents have taken to comply.
10 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 Nation-
al 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."
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
Helpers, Local 490, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, by failing and refusing, on request, to
furnish it with information which is necessary for, and
relevant to, the performance of its function as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of the employ-
ees in the following appropriate unit:
All regular part-time auditors employed by the Re-
spondents in and out of Respondents' Fairfield,
California, facility; excluding all other employees,
office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL promptly comply with the above-named
Union's request for relevant information necessary for its
performance as bargaining representative of the unit em-
ployees.
WE WILL furnish the above-named Union with a copy
of the health and welfare plan covering the unit employ-
ees and after doing this bargain in good faith with the
above-named Union and for 5 months thereafter as if the
initial year of certification had not expired.
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 refuse to bargain collectively in good
faith with Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
VALLEY INVENTORY SERVICE, INC.; JEF-
FREY LINK, D/B/A ACCURATE AUDITORS
ASSOC.; AND JEFFREY LINK, D/B/A INVEN-
TORY AUDIT SYSTEMS; PAT MILLESTADT,
D/B/A AUDITORS PLUS