Wisconsin Southern Gas Co., Inc.

480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Wisconsin Southern Gas Company , Inc. and Local Union No. 6-111, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union , AFL-CIO. Case 30-CA-724 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS BROWN , JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA On June 21, 1968, Trial Examiner Owsley Vose issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices, and recom- mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and orders that Respondent, Wisconsin Southern Gas Company, Inc., Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. MEMBER BROWN dissenting For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion in Univis, Inc., 169 NLRB No. 18, I would find that the basic dispute in this case should be left for resolution within the framework of the settlement procedures agreed upon by the parties in their current collective- bargaining agreement. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE OWSLEY VOSE, Trial Examiner. This case, heard at Lake 173 NLRB No. 79 Geneva, Wisconsin, on April 11, 1968, pursuant to a charge filed December 28, 1967, and a complaint issued on February 14, 1968, presents the question whether the Respondent (herein- after called the Company) violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by its conduct since November 30, 1967, in unilaterally changing its sickness and hospitalization insurance carrier and in instituting a sickness and hospitalization insurance program different from that agreed upon by the parties in the latest collective-bargaining agreements which became effective No- vember 1, 1967. Upon the entire record and my observation of the witnesses and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the parties I make the following FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The Company, a Wisconsin corporation, is a public utility furnishing gas service throughout Southern Wisconsin. During the calendar year 1967, a representative period, the Company sold in excess of $500,000 worth of gas. During the same period, the Company purchased and received from out-of-State sources more than $50,000 worth of goods and services. Upon these facts I find, as the Company admits, that it is engaged in "commerce" and operations "affecting commerce" within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Local Union No. 6 -111, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union , AFL-CIO (herein called the Umon), is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Company's Unilateral Change ofIts Sickness and Hospitalization Program in Violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act 1. Background The Company and the Union negotiated a 2-year collective- bargaining contract in 1965 which became effective on November 1, 1965. Section 7 of the contract provided as follows The Company will continue its policy to provide hospital, surgical and a group life insurance program at no cost to the employees. The contract also contained a clause providing for the reopening of negotiations on the subject of wages and of extended sickness coverage after one year, provided proper notice was given. Pursuant to the reopener clause, further negotiation meet- ings were held in October 1966. In these meetings the Company sought to induce the Union to agree to its changing the carrier of the sickness and hospitalization insurance from Blue Cross-Blue Shield (herein called Blue Cross) to Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company (herein called Pacific Mutual). The latter was the carrier of the life and accident insurance provided the employees under the contract. Blue Cross had been the hospitalization insurance carrier for the Company's WISCONSIN SOUTHERN GAS 481 employees since 1944 and Blue Shield had been the surgical carrier since 1963. After approximately five meetings, in one or more of which representatives of Pacific Mutual and Blue Cross were present and explained their respective programs, it was agreed by the Company and the Union that Blue Cross would remain the sickness and hospitalization insurance carrier. 2. The 1967 negotiations between the Company and the Union Negotiations for a new 2-year contract to succeed the one expiring on November 1, 1967, commenced in October 1967. At the start of the negotiations the Union presented the Company with a written document in which it stated its proposals for amending the various provisions of the existing contract. Among these were the following, dealing with article V, section 7, the provision covering "Hospital, Surgical and Group Life Insurance": A. As is 1. The Union proposes the added coverage to the present Blue Cross and Blue Shield, as presented to the Company by Mr. Bernard Farmer of Blue Cross and Blue Shield. 2. The Major points are outlined below: a Increase from seventy (70) day to three hundred six-five (365) day in hospital coverage. c. Preferred contract, which is the SM 100 series at $10,000 with full obstetrical coverage. e Change from twenty five (25) dollar x-ray and Laboratory and twenty five (25) dollar doctor fees to two hundred (200) dollar Mutualized Doctor, x-ray, and laboratory coverage. f. Increase coverage to students at age 23 to students at age 25. g. Oral surgery coverage. Later on in the negotiations, in a revised written proposal to the Company, the Union reiterated its earlier request "for increased benefits, under Blue Cross-Blue Shield." At a meeting on October 26, 1967, the Company orally agreed to the Union's proposals for improved sickness and hospitalization insurance coverage by Blue Cross, including specific plans offered by Blue Cross such as the Series 2000 Plan, its Hospital Service Plan, and the SM 100 Plan, the designation for its Surgical-Medical Plan. In a memorandum of agreement in the form of a letter from the Company to the Union which was signed by the parties on November 1, 1967, the Company noted its agreement to the following "Improvement in hospital and surgical plan." 1. 365-day hospital care for disability 2. $200 Mutualized DX & L 3. Dependents to age 25 4. Usual customary charges up to $1000 with full O.B. 5. $200 Mutualized DX & Li 6. Dependents to age 25 7. Major Medical to $10,000 with dependents to age 25 Thereafter the parties signed a new 2-year collective- bargaining contract having a November 1, 1967, effective date. This contract did not specifically name Blue Cross as the sickness and hospitalization insurance carrier, but merely continued the general language of the 1965-1967 contract that the "Company will continue its policy to provide hospital, surgical and a group life insurance program at no cost to the employees." About this same time the Company signed another contract with Blue Cross providing the improved coverage which had just been negotiated with the Umon. This contract was made effective November 1, 1967. Pursuant to this contract Blue Cross issued to each of the Company's employees a Series 2000 Group Certificate, Hospital Service Plan, a Surgical- Medical 100 Group Certificate, and a Major Medical Group Certificate, together with amendments providing the improve- ments listed in the November 1, 1967, letter memorandum of agreement. These certificates and amendments were all made effective as of November 1, 1967. At no time during the 1967 negotiations for a new 2-year collective-bargaining contract was the matter of changing the carrier of the sickness and hospitalization insurance coverage brought up by the Company. 3. The Company's simultaneous negotiations with Pacific Mutual It has been found in the preceding section that the Union was seeking in the October 1967 negotiations, among other things, increased sickness and hospitalization benefits under the Blue Cross program. Blue Cross, as above noted, has been the hospitalization carrier since 1944, and the sickness insurance carrier since 1963. Notwithstanding the pendency of these negotiations with the Union, the Company simultaneous- ly was negotiating with Pacific Mutual about a possible change of sickness and hospitalization insurance carriers and benefits A letter from Frederick Beyer, manager of the Chicago Group Office of Pacific Mutual to Personnel Director Barnes, dated October 11, 1967, establishes that the Company had prior to this time inquired of Pacific Mutual concerning its ability to furnish sickness and hospitalization coverage which would be equivalent to the Blue-Cross coverage which the Union was seeking to obtain in the 1967 negotiations. In this letter Beyer admitted that it would "be impossible to duplicate Blue Cross' "full surgical coverage." At no time prior to the signing of the 1967-69 contract in November, in fact, at no time prior to December 1 when, as found below, the Company announced to union representatives that it was changing the carrier of sickness and hospitalization insurance from Blue Cross to Pacific did the Company mention to the Union its negotiations with Pacific Mutual. 4. The Company notifies the Union of its decision to change sickness and hospitalization insurance carriers At 4 p.m. on December 1, 1967, Personnel Director Barnes called Edward Kunze, vice president of the Union, and Dwayne Boldt, chief steward of the Union, into his office and informed them that as of the first of the coming year Pacific Mutual, rather than Blue Cross, would be its sickness and i The apparent repetition of items five and six is due to the fact that under Blue Cross procedure separate certificates are issued its "Hospital Service Plan," for its "Surgical-Medical 100 " plan, and for its "Major Medical" "Surgical Care" plan and separate amendments are prepared for each plan . Items one, two and three above refer to changes in the "Hospital Service Plan." Items four, five and six include changes in the "Surgical-Medical 100 " plan Item seven, as is apparent, refers to a change in the "Major Medical" plan. 482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD hospitalization insurance carriers. Vice President Kunze ques- tioned the Company's right to change carriers. Barnes stated that the Company had the right to do so. When Kunze and Boldt requested that they be given a copy of the Pacific Mutual plan for comparison purposes Barnes replied that he did not have one available, that it was still being worked on. Kunze stated that the plan would have to be as good or better than the Blue Cross plan. Boldt objected to the Company's action, at which time the following conversation occurred, according to Boldt's credited testimony I stated that I did not think the Union would go along with the insurance plan, or we wouldn't like the idea. Mr. Barnes stated that it was out of our hands, that we couldn't do anything about it. I told him I thought somewhere along the line the Union was going to fight this ... Mr. Barnes said it was out of our hands, that he thought if we wanted to fight it, it was going to cost both parties a lot of money.2 The Company earlier that day had by letter communicated to Pacific Mutual its decision to have that concern act as the carrier of sickness and hospital insurance covering its employ- ees. In this letter to Beyer, the manager of the Chicago Group Office of Pacific Mutual L. H Scheutz, the Company's general manager, stated in part as follows This is to inform you that Wisconsin Southern Gas Company, Inc. has elected Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company as the carrier for its group hospital and surgical benefits. The benefits as outlined in your proposal of November 17, 1967, except for group life and AD & D, are to become effective as of January 1, 1968. In addition to your proposal of November 17, we further wish to incorporate the additional coverages as outlined in your letter of November 28, 1967; that is, full coverage for obstetrical benefits and coverage up to age 25 for full time students and physically and mental disabled children, totally unable to support themselves. Also we would like to have this coverage available for our employees after two months of service. On the same day that the Company formally notified Pacific Mutual of its decision to have Pacific Mutual act as the carrier of its sickness and hospitalization insurance, December 1, 1967, the Company gave notice to Blue Cross of its intention to terminate the coverage of its employees by Blue Cross as of the end of the year, 1967. 5. Subsequent events Not having been given a copy of the Pacific Mutual Plan, Union Representative Kunze and Boldt asked Personnel Director Barnes for a copy on December 20 They explained at this time that they needed the plan to make a comparison between the two programs Barnes stated that the Pacific Mutual plan was not yet available as it was still being worked on by that concern. Barnes added that representatives from Pacific Mutual were going to be at the office the following day and suggested that the Union representatives should talk to them then. Kunze then stated, according to his credited testimony, that "we were tired of playing the game with him, that we weren't getting anything done and it was getting close to the time when the insurance was being changed, and that if something wasn't done we were definitely going to file unfair labor practice charges against the company." After speaking with representatives of Pacific Mutual on December 21, Kunze and Boldt again pressed Barnes for a copy of the Pacific Mutual plan on December 22, warning Barnes that "if something wasn't done we were going ahead as we had talked about earlier."3 Barnes offered to have Pacific Mutual's complete plan ready immediately after the holiday and the two union representatives acquiesced in this proposal. On Tuesday, December 26, Barnes gave Kunze and James Dahlke, the president of the Union, a copy of the Pacific Mutual plan and asked them to return it as soon as possible, as it was his only available copy. Later that day Barnes wrote to Beyer of Pacific Mutual and enclosed a copy of the November 1, 1967 letter memorandum of agreement with the Union and called his attention to part 7, D, thereof dealing with "Improvement in hospital and surgical plan." In the letter Barnes also stated as follows: I gave the copy of our insurance plan to the Union President this morning. Just off the record, they are making all sorts of noises regarding this insurance and it is my understanding that they are going to have it reviewed by some insurance expert. However, I am sure that when all is said and done they will begin to realize that they have a deal at least equal to, and in many cases better than, what they had before. On Thursday, December 28, 1967, the Union's attorney, George Graf, prepared a charge alleging that the Company had violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by unilaterally changing the wages, hours, and working conditions of its employees, about November 30, 1967, without negotiating with the Union. This charge was filed with the Board on December 29, 1967. On February 14, 1968, the General Counsel issued the complaint in this proceeding. Conversations were had about this time between the Company's attorney, Roger Gierhart, and Beyer, of Pacific Mutual, concerning certain extensions in sickness and hospitali- zation coverage for the Company's employees. They concerned the definition of dependents and payment for dental work in a hospital after an accident. On February 19, 1968, Beyer notified Gierhart by letter that Pacific Mutual was including among the benefits for the Company's employees coverage for (1) unmarried dependent children living at home through age 25 and (2) dental services after an accident under certain circumstances. Previously Pacific Mutual had treated unmar- ried children between 19 and 25 as dependents only if they were full-time students. The dental services added in Beyer's letter dated February 19, 1968, had not been specifically provided for in the coverage previously afforded the Com- pany's employees by Pacific Mutual. Both of the coverages had been specifically provided in the Blue-Cross program covering the Company's employees under the contract between the Company and Blue Cross which became effective November 1, 1967. 2 The foregoing findings are based on the credited testimony of Boldt and Kunze. Personnel Director Barnes testified that to the best of his recollection neither Kunze nor Boldt made any statement concern- ing the change of carriers I find it extremely unlikely that these two experienced union representatives who had just finished negotiating a new 2-year contract providing , in their opinion, for Blue Cross sickness and hospitalization coverage , would say nothing when informed of the Company's unilateral decision to change carriers. Both Kunze and Boldt impressed me as testifying sincerely and I credit their testimony in preference to Barnes ' vague recollection to the contrary. 3 This is Kunze's credited testimony. WISCONSIN SOUTHERN GAS 483 On February 28, 1968, L. H. Schuetz, the company's vice president and general manager, signed a formal agreement with Pacific Mutual adding sickness and hospitalization coverage to the group life and accident insurance policy already in effect between the Company and Pacific Mutual. This policy is terminable upon 30 day's notice by the Company to Pacific Mutual. 6. Conclusions Section 8(a)(5) of the Act provides that it shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer "to refuse to bargain collective- ly with the representatives of his employees... Section 8(d) of the act states in part That where there is in effect a collective-bargaining contract ... the duty to bargain collectively shall also mean that no party to such contract shall terminate or modify such contract, unless the party desiring such termination or modification- (1) serves a written notice upon the other party to the contract of the proposed termination or modification sixty days prior to the expiration date thereof, or in the event such contract contains no expiration date, sixty days prior to the time it is proposed to make such termination or modification, (2) offers to meet and confer with the other party for the purpose of negotiating a new contract or a contract containing the proposed modifications; (3) notifies the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service .. and simultaneously therewith notifies any State or Territorial agency established to mediate and conciliate disputes ... and (4) continues in full force and effect, without resorting to strike or lockout, all the terms and conditions of the existing contract for a period of sixty days after such notice is given or until the expiration date of such contract, whichever occurs later: It is well settled that an employer acts in derogation of his bargaining obligations under Section 8(d), and hence violates Section 8(a)(5) when he unilaterally modifies contractual terms or conditions of employment during the effective period of a contract. C & S Industries, Inc, 158 NLRB 454, 457 See also NL.R.B v. Katz et al., 369 U.S. 736, The Jacobs Manufacturing Company, 94 NLRB 1214, enfd. 196 F.2d 680, 684 (C.A. 2). In this case the Company, without notice to the Union, not only changed the carrier of its sickness and hospitalization insurance but also changed various of the benefits under its sickness and hospitalization program. The Company notified the Union about the changes in its insurance program only after the changes had already been made. Although as found above, the Union protested the Company's action on several occasions, the Company never retreated from its position that the decision to make the changes had been made and that there was nothing the Union could do about it.4 The change in the carrier of its sickness and hospitalization insurance was not a minor matter, for as representatives of both Blue Cross and Pacific Mutual testified at the hearing, the availability of benefits depends not only on the language of the insurance policy but also upon the manner in which the general language of the policy is construed and administered by the carrier. While I do not propose to go into the merits of the various changes in benefits which were made when the Company changed insurance carriers from Blue Cross to Pacific Mutual, the fact that changes were made is clearly established in this record. I have already mentioned that Pacific Mutual's cover- age of dependents on January 1, 1968 was less extensive than that of Blue Cross and that Pacific Mutual's Policy on January 1, 1968, did not specifically cover dental services in a hospital after an accident. As indicated above, there are differences in the coverage for surgeon's fees because of Pacific Mutual's use of a fixed-fee schedule and Blue Cross's payment of the usual and customary charge for the services performed. Since Pacific Mutual's fixed schedule of surgical fees is geared to the locality in which the employer's establishment is located, this system might well work to the disadvantage of employees where surgical services of a highly specialized surgeon were required in another more expensive area. The claim procedure is different under Pacific Mutual than it was under Blue Cross and in fact involves more troublesome steps for the employees than under the Blue Cross system of simply having the employee show his identification card to the doctor and the hospital. I do not mean to leave the impression m the foregoing discussion that Blue Cross' coverage was better in general than the Pacific Mutual's coverage adopted by the Company to replace the previous Blue Cross coverage. In some areas, I find, Pacific Mutual's coverage was superior to that formerly furnished by Blue Cross. The significant thing is that changes in coverage and in the procedure for obtaining benefits were effected when the Company replaced Blue Cross with Pacific Mutual as the carrier of its sickness and hospitalization insurance for the employees and that these changes were made without securing the Union's consent thereto. The Company, relying on the fact that its 1967 agreements with the Union do not specifically name Blue Cross as the carrier of its sickness and hospitalization insurance, contends that it was free to change carvers as long as it furnished benefits equivalent to those provided under the November 1, 1967, Blue Cross plan. I cannot agree. The Company recog- nizes its obligation under the November 1 letter memorandum of agreement to provide the seven improvements in its hospital and surgical plan listed therein. While Blue Cross is not specifically named in the letter memorandum of agreement, the record establishes that the parties orally agreed that these improvements would be furnished through the Blue Cross. The Company actually implemented this agreement by thereafter contracting with Blue Cross for an expanded sickness and hospitalization program through Blue Cross containing the seven listed improvements. Construing the letter memorandum of understanding together with the 1967-69 collective-bar- gaining contract, and taking into consideration the context of events in which these agreements were signed, I conclude that the Company and the Union, in legal contemplation, thereby 4 In view of my finding of fact that the Union did protest the bargain about the changes by not objecting when belatedly informed of Company's unilateral action on several occasions in December 1967, 1 the Company's action. must reject the Company's contention that the Union waived its right to 484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD agreed that the existing Blue Cross program, augmented by the seven improvements listed in the letter memorandum of agreement, would be continued through Blue Cross throughout the life of 1967-69 contract Certainly, in view of the fact that the Union successfully resisted the Company's efforts to change insurance carriers in the 1966 negotiations , when the matter of insurance carriers was openly bargained about, and in view of all the other evidence indicating that it was Blue Cross coverage which was being discussed in the 1967 negotiations, including the fact that the Company actually signed a contract with Blue Cross furnishing the agreed-upon coverage, the Company cannot be heard to say that it did not contemplate utilizing Blue Cross as the sickness and hospitali- zation carrier when it signed the 1967 agreements. The Company's action on December 1, 1967, therefore, in changing carriers and benefits involved in its sickness and hospitalization program without notice to the Union and without observing the requirements of Section 8(d) of the Act, clearly violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Even if I am in error in my construction of the November 1, 1967, agreements between the parties, there can be no doubt that' as of November 1, 1967, the Company, after negotiations with the Union, established an expanded sickness and hospital- ization program through Blue Cross. Under Section 8(a)(5) of the Act the Company was obligated to notify the Union and give it an opportunity to bargain about its proposed changes in its sickness and hospitalization program. Its failure to do so constituted a clearcut violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act regardless of whether the improved sickness and hospitahza- tion program be deemed to have been set up pursuant to the terms of a written contract or not. With regard to the Company's contention that insurance programs wholly paid for by the employer do not constitute wages or a term or condition of employment, I believe the Company is in error in this respect. The only authority cited by the Company for this proposition, Sylvania Electric Products, Inc v. NL.R B., 291 F.2d 128 (C.A. 1), cert. denied 368 U.S. 926, in my opinion, holds exactly to the contrary. Thus the court stated as follows (291 F.2d at 131)• This court held in W. W. Cross & Co. v. NL.R.B., supra, that the benefits of an employee group insurance plan were "wages" within the meaning of the word as used in the pertinent sections of the Act since they constituted emoluments resulting from employment or direct and immediate economic benefits flowing from the employment relationship, and hence were matters as to which the Act required employers to bargain collectively in good faith with the union representing an appropriate group of employees. We adhere to that decision. See also Sylvania Electric Products, Inc v. N.L.R.B, 358 F.2d 591, 592 (C.A. 1). The Company further contends that no violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (d) can be found in this case because of the Union's failure to submit the questions of the Company's sickness and accident insurance program to arbitration pursu- ant to the 1967-69 contract provision. However, the disagree- ment between the parties over the Company's change of the insurance programs and earners presents primarily a question of a statutory violation , and only secondarily is a question of contract interpretation involved. Congress entrusted the Board with the power to prevent persons from engaging in unfair labor practices and specifically provided that this power should "not be affected by any other means of adjustment or prevention that has been or may be established by agreement law, or otherwise ...." In the circumstances of this case, in my opinion, it would be an unwarranted shirking of its statutory responsibilities for the Board to defer to arbitration. See C & S Industries, Inc, 158 NLRB 454, 458-459; W P. Ihrie & Sons, 165 NLRB No. 2; Gravenslund Operating Company, 168 NLRB No. 72. The General Counsel and the Union both strenuously urge in their briefs that the Respondent's conduct during the October 1967 negotiations in dealing with Pacific Mutual concerning a change in insurance carriers and benefits behind the Union's back while at the same time bargaining with the Union concerning the continuance of the Blue Cross program with certain improvements constituted a flagrant breach of the Company's obligation to bargain collectively with the Union in good faith. In view of the whole sequence of events in this case, I concur fully with the conclusions of the General Counsel and the Union concerning what appears to be an obvious lack of good faith on the part of the Company in this case. However, the issue of the Company's conduct prior to November 30, 1967, was not raised in the complaint in this case and in my opinion is not properly before me for decision. Hence I make no finding in this regard. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Union is the exclusive collective-bargaining repre- sentative of the Company's employees in an appropriate bargaining unit consisting of all production, maintenance, office and clerical employees, excluding professional em- ployees, guards , watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act 2. The matters of the carrier of, and the benefits under, the Company's sickness and hospitalization insurance covering its employees constitute wages or other conditions of employ- ment within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 3. The collective-bargaining agreements between the Com- pany and the Union which became effective on November 1, 1967, contemplated that Blue Cross would remain the msur- anpe carrier for the duration of the agreements and that the benefits would remain as agreed upon in the negotiations. 4. The Company, by its action on and after December 1, 1967, in changing the carrier of its sickness and hospitalization insurance covering its employees from Blue Cross-Blue Shield to Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company and in changing the benefits to the employees under said insurance program, all without notice to the Union in breach of its obligations under Section 8(d), has thereby refused to bargain collectively in good faith with the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that the Company has engaged in unfair labor practices by unilaterally changing insurance carriers and benefits, terms and conditions of employment which were covered by collective-bargaining agreements then in effect covering the Company's employees, my Recommended Order will provide that it cease and desist from such unfair labor practices. Since the changes in the Company's insurance program and the carrier thereof were made in violation of the Act, my WISCONSIN SOUTHERN GAS 485 Recommended Order will direct that, upon the written request of the Union, the Company shall rescind and cancel the sickness and hospitalization coverage for its employees which the Company secured from Pacific Mutual without first obtaining the Union's agreement thereto and restore the Blue Cross-Blue Shield sickness and hospitalization coverage which the company contracted for in the contract with Blue Cross-Blue Shield which became effective November 1, 1967. This is the contract which the Company canceled with Blue Cross-Blue Shield as of January 1, 1968. While the Union should have an ample opportunity to consider whether to request the restoration of Blue Cross-Blue Shield coverage, in my opinion it would not effectuate the policies of the Act to leave the question of insurance carriers and benefits open for an indefinite period. Consequently, the Union will be required to make its decision regarding these matters within 60 days from the date of this Decision. If the Union does not request the restoration of Blue Cross-Blue Shield coverage within 60 days, the Pacific Mutual coverage will remain in effect, subject of course to mutual agreements of the parties regarding this subject matter. In order to enable the Company to have an opportunity to make arrangements for the restoration of Blue Cross-Blue Shield coverage without any lapse in coverage of the employees, the Company shall have 40 days after the receipt of a request in writing from the Union to reinstate Blue Cross-Blue Shield sickness and hospi- talization coverage in which to reinstate such insurance coverage. Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the entire record and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following: RECOMMENDED ORDER sickness and hospitalization insurance coverage for its employ- ees through Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company and reestablish, without any lapse in coverage, the sickness and hospitalization coverage through Blue Cross-Blue Shield which it contracted for in its contract with Blue Cross-Blue Shield which became effective November 1, 1967, but which was terminated by it as of January 1, 1968. (b) Post at its Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, office and all other locations where employees customarily report for work, the attached notice marked "Appendix." Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 30, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained 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.5 (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 30, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Recommended Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith.6 5 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice. In the further event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." 6 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read- "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." The Respondent, Wisconsin Southern Gas Company, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with Local Union No. 6-111, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate unit stated above with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment. (b) Making unilateral changes in insurance carriers, insur- ance benefits for employees, or any other changes in wages, rates of pay or any other terms and conditions of employment of its employees in the above-stated appropriate unit during the term of the contract without first reaching agreement with the above-named Union concerning such changes. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain- ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist the above-named Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from any or all such activities. 2. Take the following affirmative action which it is found will effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Upon written request from the Union, and in the manner set forth in the portion of the Trial Examiner's decision entitled "The Remedy," rescind and cancel the APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively in good faith with Local Union No. 6-111, Oil Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining unit stated below. WE WILL NOT unilaterally institute changes in insur- ance carriers or insurance benefits or institute any other changes in wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment of the employees in the bargaining unit stated below, during the term of any collective-bargaining contract covering said employees, without first consulting with and bargaining with the above-named Union concerning such changes and reaching agreement on any modification of the terms of the contract. The bargaining unit is. All production and maintenance, office and clerical employees, excluding professional employees, guards, watchmen and supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL, upon written request from the Union and in the manner provided in the Order, rescind and cancel the 486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sickness and hospitalization insurance coverage furnished our employees through Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company and at the same time will restore the sickness and hospitalization insurance coverage provided through Blue Cross-Blue Shield in November and December 1967. WISCONSIN SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY, INC. (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) This Notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this Notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate direct- ly with the Board's Regional Office, 2nd Floor Commerce Building, 744 North 4th Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203, Telephone 272-3861.