The Jeffrey Manufacturing Co.

THE JEFFREY MANUFACTURING COMPANY The Jeffrey Manufacturing Company, Morristown Division and Shopmen's Local Union Number 715 of the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL- CIO. Case 10-CA-8145 August 14, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, AND JENKINS On May 6, 1970, Trial Examiner Charles W. Schneider issued his Decision in the above proceed- ing, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter the Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and supporting brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner as amplified herein.' ' In arriving at our conclusion here we have considered the shop drawings submitted by the Respondent in the representation case We have also considered the July 9, 1969, investigatory affidavit of Warsmith, the resident manager of the Morristown plant, a copy of which the Respondent has furnished in this proceeding as suggested by the Trial Examiner in fn I of his Decision. These reflect the type of work at both plants, Columbus ap- parently doing more complicated work on its products, such as continuous mining machines and drilling machines , than Morristown does on the welded steel chains and heavy strength chains that it manufactures As ex- plained hereinafter, we believe that the Morristown employees, by reason of that plant originally being part of Columbus, had some basis for evaluat- mg the leaflet and work differences We note also that , on product distnc- tions, including requisite skills, the Respondent had it within its power to answer the Union's leaflet immediately , without any delay Y A reference to "some" rates should not be-confused with a sweeping caption like "average Take Home Pay" used by the Union in Grede Foun- dries, Inc , 153 NLRB 984, 985, where the average hourly rates proved to be substantially lower than quoted in the leaflet ' The Regional Director's finding, reiterated by the Board, is supported by the July 9, 1969, affidavit of Warsmith 4 There are two of these affidavits, both dated April 8, 1970 One is by Warsmith and the other by Flood, director of personnel at Columbus War- smith had only the following to say on this point in his later affidavit As I stated in my earlier Affidavit, there were only three tool and die makers and twelve janitors at the Columbus Plant at the time of the election on June 20, 1969 However, it is not correct to state as the National Labor Relations Board has that there are no other non-incen- tive employees at the Columbus Plant It is also not correct to state as the National Labor Relations Board does that all welders, assemblers, and punch press operators at the Columbus Plant are paid on incen- tive W arsmith's July 1969 affidavit had said "Of the 6 classifications listed in the leaflet only the tool and diemakers and janitors are on non-incentive pay-the rest are on incentive pay " Also "The highest pay under this 895 The Respondent now attempts to relitigate the findings of the Board in its Decision on Review in the underlying representation proceeding. (180 NLRB 701.) It reargues the significance of the Columbus contract wage rates, "some" of which were quoted in the union leaflet distributed the af- ternoon before the election.2 In challenging the Board's conclusion it asserts little factual material not previously considered. With respect to the number of Columbus employees actually paid on an incentive or "gain share" basis, found by the Re- gional Director to comprise 585 out of 600 em- ployees at Columbus, and conceded by the Respon- dent in its brief in support of the Regional Director's Supplemental Decision, Order, and Direction of Second Election, the Respondent now contends that nearly one-third, or 174, were on in- centive.' The present contention is based on af- fidavits prepared by the Respondent at the unfair labor practice stage, which, on the point here in question , we find to be equivocal.4 As explained by the Board, the contract rates in the leaflet were ac- tually a significant understatement of the pay received by virtually all Columbus employees, while Respondent-changing its position-now contends that the number so affected would be less, more like two-thirds of the unit. Upon further analysis, however, the Respondent's current assertion as to nonincentive employees is, by classifications, rele- vant only to eight employees-two assemblers and automatic increase will be the tool and diemakers who will go to $3 75 plus ten cents an hour All others, especially since they are incentive workers, will receive much less " IEmphasis supplied I The following is the pertinent portion of Flood's affidavit It is not accurate to say that tool and die makers and janitors at the Columbus Plant are the only classifications of employees covered by the collective bargaining agreement who are paid non-incentive rates For example, a review of our seniority and payroll records for the month of June, 1969, showed that there were the following number of employees employed on non-incentive rates in the follow- ing labor grades Labor Grade Number of Employees 2 4 3 22 4 23 5 14 6 21 7 38 8 29 9 10 10 2 11 H Total 174 It is also not accurate to say that all assemblers and welders at the Columbus Plant covered by our collective-bargaining agreement were paid on incentive rates For example, as of June 1969, there were two assemblers paid on a non-incentive rate and there were six welders paid on a non-incentive rate We note that Warsmith's first affidavit gave the numbers of assemblers as 41 and punch press operators as 32 at Columbus It did not mention the total number of welders 184 NLRB No. 108 896 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD six welders-part of two classifications whose wage rates were quoted in the leaflet and a very small percentage of the total unit. These eight are now asserted to have had their contract rate of pay overstated in the handbill. In the circumstances we view the Respondent's contentions on this point, which concern records totally within its possession, as somewhat belated and as falling short of the requisite specification of pertinent facts to justify going to hearing.' We take a similar view of the assertion in War- smith's April 8, 1970, affidavit in support of Respondent's opposition that only one eligible voter at Morristown, Jack Matheson, a milling machine operator, had ever been employed at Columbus, and that, to Warsmith's knowledge, no other eligible voter at Morristown had visited, or viewed the production process of, Columbus. In ef- fect the Respondent concedes that Morristown is a partial removal from Columbus. From the represen- tation case we note that this partial removal ap- parently occurred in 1962 and that there was a Machinists contract covering Columbus employees as early as 1959. It would unduly stretch credulity to assume that, over the years, there have been no employee discussions at Morristown of contract provisions at Columbus. We would not, on the basis of facts now alleged, change our conclusion that Morristown employees had, as we found, "some" basis for evaluating the leaflet by reason of this par- tial removal. The Respondent relies on the decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in N.L.R.B. v. Or- tronix, Inc., 380 F.2d 737, where the court re- manded for hearing because of a "head-on clash" in the allegations of the Respondent and the Union concerning election regularity. We view the problem here as a matter of interpreting admitted facts, those newly asserted being insufficient to jus- tify a hearing and, in part, contrary to facts previ- ously supplied and admitted by the Respondent. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that the Respondent, The Jeffrey Manufac- turing Company, Morristown Division, Morristown, Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors, and as- signs, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Ex- aminer's Recommended Order. ° We note that the Respondent considers it a "major fallacy" for the Board to have construed the leaflet rates as maximum rates The Union, of course, spoke in the leaflet only of "some" rates. However, it is our view that employees construe allegations of selected wage rates, which are not characterized as average or minimal, as meaning top rates, consistent with human nature and the whole spirit of our competitive society TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. The Issue CHARLES W. SCHNEIDER, Trial Examiner: The case arises on a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by counsel for the General Counsel, based on an admitted refusal by the Respondent to bargain with the certified Charging Union on the ground that the certification is invalid for the reason that Respondent's objections to the election were im- properly overruled. B. The Representation Proceeding' Upon petition filed under Section 9(c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C.A. 159(c)) on April 21, 1969, by Shopmen's Local Union No. 715 of the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union (Case 10-RC-7758), the Regional Director for Region 10 of the Board, after hearing, issued his Decision and Direction of Election on May 19, 1969, in an agreed on appropriate bargaining unit, described hereinafter, of the employees of The Jeffrey Manu- facturing Company, herein called the Respondent. ' Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding, Case l0-RC-7758, as the term "record" is defined in Section 102 68 and 102.69(f) of theBoard's rules (Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, National Labor Relations Board, Series 8, as amended). See LTV Electrosystems, Inc., 166 NLRB 938, enfd. 388 F.2d 683 (C.A. 4), cert denied 393 U.S. 843 , Golden Age Beverage Co , 167 NLRB 151, enfd. 415 F 2d 26 (C A. 5); Intertype Co v Penello, 269 F.Supp 573 (D.C. Va ), Intertype Company v N L.R B , 401 F.2d 41 (C A. 4), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1049, Follett Corp., 164 NLRB 378, enfd. 397 F.2d 91 (C A. 7), Sec- tion 9(d) of the National Labor Relations Act. Respondent, along with its opposition to motion for summary judgment and supporting brief, filed a motion to take adnunistrauve notice of certain specified material related to the representation case The material consists of three formal documents in the representation case, and three affidavits submitted by the Respondent in the representation case-one to a Board attorney and two directly to the Board Copies of the affidavits to the Board are in the formal file of the representation case in Washington , D C Those two affidavits and the formal documentss referred to are included in the matter officially noticed above I find no copy of the affidavit given to the Board attorney (affidavit of Harold R. Warsmith, dated July 9, 1968) 1 as- sume that that affidavit relates to the Respondent 's objections to the elec- tion If the Respondent will transmit a copy of that affidavit to the Execu- tive Secretary of the Board with the certificate of counsel as to its relation- ship to the case, it may also be considered to be a part of the record The remaining matters which the Respondent requests be administra- tively noticed are described by the Respondent as follows Any and all other Affidavits, statements or other written documents given by any witness to the National Labor Relations Board in connection with its investigation of the Respondent's Objections to Election in Case 10-RC-7758 No copies of such material are supplied by the Respondent. In such a cir- cumstance the motion to take administrative notice of those documents is denied on the authority of the LYTV Electrosystems, Inc, and Golden Age Beverage Co., cases cited above THE JEFFREY MANUFACTURING COMPANY Pursuant to the Decision and Direction of Elec- tion, an election by secret ballot was conducted on June 20, 1969, among the employees in the ap- propriate unit to determine the question of representation. Upon conclusion of the balloting, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots which showed that, of approximately 194 eligible voters, 103 cast valid ballots for the Union, 86 cast valid ballots against the Union, and 1 ballot was void. There were no challenged ballots. Thereafter, on June 27, 1969, Respondent filed timely objections to the election, in which Respondent asserted, in sum, that (1) prior to the election union represen- tatives made substantial and material misrepresen- tations concerning wage rates paid and to be paid under the union agreements at other plants, which Respondent had no opportunity to correct adequately, (2) employees were coerced, restrained, and intimidated in violation of their rights under the NLRA, (3) union representatives made false representations regarding benefits to be derived from union representation, and (4) by such acts the employees' right to a free choice in the election was destroyed. On July 24, 1969, the Regional Director issued his Supplemental Decision, Order and Direction of Second Election, in which he found Respondent's objection concerning misrepresentations of wage rates to have merit and for such reason ordered that the election be set aside and a second election held. With respect to the remaining objections the Regional Director found that they were without merit and accordingly they were overruled. Thereafter, under date of August 5, 1969, the Union filed with the Board in Washington, D.C., exceptions to the Regional Director's SuppTemental Decision, Order and Direction of Second Election, in which the Union stated, in sum, that the Re- gional Director's findings as to wage misrepresenta- tions were erroneous, that they should be disap- proved, and that the results of the election should be confirmed. On August 20, 1969, the Board, by telegraphic order, granted the Union's request for review stat- ing that, "... it raises substantial issues warranting review," simultaneously staying the second election pending decision on review. On January 13, 1970, following the filing of briefs and other matter by the Respondent and the Union, the Board issued its Decision on Review and Certification of Representative, in which after discussion of the objection and the evidence the Board, contrary to the Regional Director, overruled the objection as to misrepresentation of wage rates. Accordingly, the Board certified the Union as the bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. 'On April 27, 1970, 1 received in the mail an undated document, ap- parently signed by counsel for the Umon and entitled "Brief of Shopmen's Union Local No 715 in Support of General Counsel 's Motion for Summary 897 C. The Unfair Labor Practice Case On January 29, 1970, the Union filed the charge . in the instant case, alleging, in sum, that Respon- dent had refused on January 23, 1970, to bargain with or recognize the Union as the bargaining representative of its production and maintenance employees. On March 2, 1970, the Regional Director issued a complaint and notice of hearing alleging that Respondent had committed unfair labor practices in violation of Sections 8(a) (1) and (5) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act by (1) unilaterally announcing on January 22, 1970, and granting on January 26, 1970, a wage increase to unit employees, and (2) on or about January 23, 1970, refusing to recognize or bargain with the Union and refusing to furnish it certain requested and described information. On March 11, 1970, Respondent filed its answer to the complaint, admitting most allegations of the complaint, denying only that the Union is the representative of the employees, and that the Respondent's refusal to deal with it constituted un- fair labor practices. Respondent further stated that its objections to the election were improperly over- ruled by the Board and that the complaint should therefore be dismissed. - On March 16, 1970, counsel for the General Counsel filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, in which he asserted that there is no issue of fact or law requiring hearing and prayed issuance of an order to show cause as to why decision should not issue finding the violations alleged in the complaint, and that thereafter such decision issue. On March 18, 1970, I issued an Order to Show Cause on General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment, returnable April 1, 1970, and subsequently, upon request of counsel for the Respondent, extended to April 13, 1970. On April 13, 1970, Respondent filed its opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, a supporting brief, and the motion to take administrative notice referred to in footnote 1, supra. No other timely ressponses have been received.2 RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Respondent opposes granting of the Motion for Summary Judgment on the ground that without a full hearing on all issues, including issues raised in the representation proceeding, Respondent would be denied due process of law. Respondent further contends that summary judgment is not an authorized means of handling unfair labor practice cases under the National Labor Relations Act. Respondent's basic contention is that the Board's determination in the representation case is errone- Judgment " An attached certificate of service was likewise undated No ex- planation being offered, the brief was returned without consideration as untimely 898 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ous and the Union therefore improperly certified. That issue was considered and decided by the Board in the representation proceeding. It is established Board policy, in absence of newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence or special circumstances, not to permit litigation be- fore a trial examiner in an unfair labor practice case of issues which were or could have been litigated in a prior related representation proceed- ing.3 This policy is applicable even though no for- mal hearing on objections has been provided by the Board . Such a hearing is not a matter of right unless substantial and material issues are raised.' No spe- cial circumstances are apparent. Though the Respondent has submitted with its Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment affidavits of two of its officials as to facts bearing on the Respon- dent's objections to the election, it is not claimed that this evidence is newly discovered or previously unavailable. Nor does the evidence appear to be of such additional weight as to affect the validity of the Board's conclusions. The cases uniformly hold that there is no statuto- ry requirement for hearing in unfair labor practices where there are no factual issues requiring an evidential hearing, and that summary judgment is appropriate under such circumstances.' There being no substantial new evidence, the Board's disposition of the representation issues may be reviewed only by the Board or by a court of ap- peals. The Respondent is respectfully referred to such procedure. The General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment is therefore appropriate and is granted. On the basis of the record before me, I make the following further: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, an Ohio corporation, with an office and place of business located at Morristown, Tennessee, where it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of chains and related items. Respondent, during the past calendar year, which period is representative of all times material herein, 9 Krieger-Ragsdale & Company, 159 NLRB 490, enfd 379 F 2d 517 (C.A 7), cert denied 389 US. 1041 See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co v N.L R B , 313 U.S. 146, 162, NLRB Rules and Regulations , Section 102 67 (f) and 102 69 (c) 4 O K. Van and Storage, Inc., 127 NLRB 1537, enfd 297 F 2d 74 (C A 5) See N L.R B v Air Control Products of St Petersburg, Inc , 335 F 2d 245, 249 (C A 5) "If there is nothing to hear, then a hearing is a senseless and useless formality." See also N L R B v Bata Shoe Co, 377 F 2d 821, 826 (C.A. 4), cert denied 389 U S 917 " . there is no requirement, con- stitutional or otherwise , that there be a hearing in the absence of substan- tial and material issues crucial to determination of whether NLRB election results are to be accepted for purposes of certification." ' See, for example, N L R B v United Carbide Caribe, Inc , 423 F 2d 231 (C A 1 ), BaumritterCorp v NLRB , 386 F 2d 117 (C A I ),NLRB v Certified Testing Laboratories, Inc , 387 F 2d 285 (C A 3), N R L B v sold and shipped finished products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of Tennessee. Respondent is, and has been at all times material herenn , engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is, and has been at all times material herein, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES All production and maintenance employees of Respondent at its Morristown, Tennessee, plant, in- cluding clerks of the shipping and receiving depart- ment and all other plant clerical employees, the "inspector-all around" and all other inspectors, the set-up man in the rounds department , and lead- men, but excluding truckdrivers, office clerical em- ployees, the nurse, professional employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bar- gaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. At all times since January 13, 1970, the Union has been the certified representative for collective bargaining of the employees in the appropriate unit, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. On or about January 19, 1970, and at all times thereafter, the Union requested Respondent (1) to bargain collectively with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment, and (2) to furnish cer- tain described information concerning the em- ployees in the appropriate unit and their conditions of employment. On or about January 23, 1970, by letter, Respon- dent refused, and at all times thereafter has con- tinued to refuse, to furnish the Union with the in- formation requested and refused to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive representa- tive of the employees in the appropriate unit. Respondent, by letter, on or about January 22, 1970, announced to the employees in the ap- propriate unit a general wage increase to be effec- Carolina Natural Gas Corp, 386 F 2d 571 (C A 4), N L R B v Puritan Sportswear Corp, 385 F 2d 142 (C A 3), LTV Electrosystems, Inc v NLRB,388F2d683(CA 4),NLRB v Aerovox Corp, 390 F 2d 653 (CA 4),NLRB v Aerovox Corp , 409 F 2d 1004(CA 4),NLRB v Union Brothers, 403 F 2d 883 (C A 4), N L R B v Clement-Blythe Com- panies, 415 F 2d 78 (C A 4), N L R B v Caption Drilling Co, 408 F 2d 676 (C A 5), N L R B v Crest Leather Mfg Corp , 414 F 2d 421 (C A 5), Frito-Lay, Inc v N L R B , 422 F 2d 169 (C A 5), Clothing Workers (Winfield Mfg. Co.) v NLRB , 424 F.2d 818 (C A.D C.), N.L.R B. v Brush-Moore Newspapers, inc , 413 F 2d 809 (C.A 6), cert. denied 396 U S. 1002, N L R B. v E-Z Davies Chevrolet, 395 F.2d 191 (C A 9), N L R B v Red-More Corp, 418 F 2d 890 (C A 9),N L R B v. Mar Salle, Inc, 425 F 2d 566 (C.A.D.C.); Follett Corp. v N L R B, 397 F 2d 91 (C A. 7). THE JEFFREY MANUFACTURING COMPANY 899 tive January 26, 1970, without notice to, or con- sultation with, the Union. On or about January 26, 1970, Respondent, uni- laterally and without notice to, or consultation with, the Union, g.anted a wage increase to its em- ployees in the aforesaid unit. By the acts described above, Respondent en- gaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(1) and (5) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Now, upon the basis of the record before me, I recommend that the Board issue the following: ORDER A. For the purpose of determining the duration of the certification, the initial year of certification shall be deemed to begin on the date the Respon- dent commences to bargain in good faith with the Union as the recognized exclusive bargaining representative of the employees involved.6 B. The Jeffrey Manufacturing Company, Mor- ristown Division, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Shop- men's Local Union Number 715 of the Interna- tional Association of Bridge, Structural and Orna- mental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the following ap- propriate unit: All production and maintenance employees of Respondent at its Morristown, Tennessee, plant, including clerks of the shipping and receiving department and all other plant cleri- cal employees, the "inspector-all around" and all other inspectors, the set-up man in the rounds department, and leadmen, but exclud- ing truckdrivers, office clerical employees, the nurse, professional employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) Refusing to furnish the Union with informa- tion concerning employees and conditions of em- ployment within the bargaining unit. (c) Unilaterally, and without notice to or con- sultation with the Union, announcing or granting wage increases to or changing any other condition of employment of, the employees in the appropriate unit. (d) Interfering with the efforts of said Union to negotiate for or represent employees as exclusive collective-bargaining representative. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request bargain collectively with Shop- men's Local Union Number 715 of the Interna- tional Association of Bridge, Structural and Orna- mental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of em- ployment, and embody in a signed agreement any understanding reached. (b) Furnish the Union the following information: (1) name of each production and maintenance em- ployee; (2) birth date; (3) resident address; (4) so- cial security number; (5) date hired; (6) present hourly rate of pay; (7) job classification or descrip- tion of work performed; (8) descriptive outline of bonus or incentive plan; (9) explanation of vaca- tion benefits, if any; (10) explanation of group in- surance-welfare benefits, or pension plan, if any, including explanation of cost thereof; and (11) ex- planation of any other fringe benefits applicable to the company production and maintenance em- ployees. (c) Post at its office and place of business at Morristown, Tennessee, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."7 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re- gion 10, after being duly signed by Respondent's representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main- tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices, to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps have been taken to comply herewith.8 6 The purpose of this provision is to insure that the employees will be ac- corded the services of their selected bargaining agent for the period pro- vided by law See Mar-Jac Poultry Co, 136 NLRB 785, Commerce Co d/bla Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229, enfd 328 F 2d 600 (C A. 5), cert de- nied 379 U S 817; Burnett Construction Co, 149 NLRB 1419, 1421, enfd 350 F.2d 57 (C.A. 10) 7 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Section 102 46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes . In the event that the Board's Order its enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read " Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." 8In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 10, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government 427-835 0 - 74 - 58 900 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Shopmen's Local Union Number 715 of the International Association of Bridge , Struc- tural and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL--CIO, as the exclusive collective-bargain- ing representative of all our following em- ployees: All production and maintenance em- ployees at out Morristown , Tennessee, plant, including clerks of the shipping and receiving department and all other plant clerical employees, the "inspector-all around" and all other inspectors , the set- up man in the rounds department, and leadmen, but excluding truckdrivers, of- fice clerical employees, the nurse , profes- sional employees , guards and all super- visors as defined in the Act. WE WILL NOT refuse to furnish the Union with information concerning employees and conditions of employment in the bargaining unit. WE WILL NOT, unilaterally and without notice to or consultation with the Union, an- nounce or grant wage increases to, or change any other .condition of employment of, em- ployees in the bargaining unit. WE WILL NOT interfere with the efforts of the Union to negotiate for or represent employees as exclusive collective-bargaining representa- tive. WE WILL bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining represen- tative of the eployees in the bargaining unit and, if an understanding is reached , we will sign a contract with the Union. WE WILL furnish the Union the following in- formation : ( 1) name of each production and maintenance employee; (2) birth date ; ( 3) re- sident address; (4) social security number; (5) date hired; (6) present hourly rate of pay; (7) job classification or description of work per- formed; ( 8) descriptive outline of bonus or in- centive plan; (9) explanation of vacation benefits, if any; (10) explanation of group in- surance-welfare benefits , or pension plan, if any, including explanation of cost thereof; and (11) explanation of any other fringe benefits applicable to production and maintenance em- ployees. THE JEFFREY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, MORRISTOWN DIVISION (Employer) Dated By (Representative ) (Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecu- tive days from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Any questions concerning this notice or com- pliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Room 701, Peachtree Building, 730 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, Telephone 404-526-5760.