Northland Camps, Inc.

36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Northland Camps, Inc. and Treasure Valley Metal Trades Council, affiliated with the Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO. Case 19-CA-4248 October 10, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND ZAGORIA On June 30, 1969, Trial Examiner George H. O'Brien issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 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 to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, 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 except as modified herein. We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing on and after October 28, 1968, to advise the Union of the names of employees in the appropriate unit and of wage increases granted to such employees; by refusing on and after November 18, 1968, to meet and bargain with the Union, and by making unilateral changes in the wages and other working conditions of its employees on December 16, 1968. We note that although Respondent contends in its brief that an impasse had been reached on October 28, 1968, which justified its subsequent conduct, the evidence, including that presented through the testimony of its Secretary, Freeman, refutes this contention. It is clear that the parties were still bargaining on and after October 28. The Union was certified on June 12, 1968, and shortly thereafter the parties commenced negotiations through some seven formal meetings, the last held on October 28. Some progress was made during several of these meetings, the last two of which were held under the auspices of a Federal Mediator. At the meeting of October 28, the Union submitted a package proposal which was taken under advisement by the Respondent. Although there were differences remaining on several issues at the conclusion of the last meeting on October 28, the principal issues of concern to the Union were a union shop and checkoff. On the next day, the Respondent, through its secretary, Freeman, furnished the Union with a counter offer, which included among other things a maintenance of membership clause as a response to the Union's request for a union shop. On November 12, the membership of the Union voted to reject this counteroffer; and a reply proposal dated November 13 concerning seven issues, including the Union's original wage demand and a renewed demand for the union shop, was transmitted to Respondent. On November 18, admittedly without ever having considered the Union's proposal of November 13, Secretary Freeman revoked the authority of his chief negotiator, Smith, to engage in further negotiations for the reason that "we have no intention to continue to negotiate any of the items further," and instructed him to make the Union a last and final offer This last and final offer, submitted to the Union on November 22, was substantially identical to Respondent's October 29 proposal. On November 27 and on December 11, the Union requested the Respondent to meet, but the Respondent failed to respond. On the basis of the foregoing, it is clear that the parties had not reached an impasse on October 28 as contended by Respondent inasmuch as both sides continued bargaining by submitting altered proposals after that time. It is also clear that the deadlock resulting from the Union's rejection of Respondent's "last and final offer" of November 22 did not excuse Respondent's actions, for a deadlock caused by a party who refuses to bargain in good faith is not a legally cognizable impasse justifying unilateral conduct.' The abrupt decision on the part of the Respondent to submit a last and final offer and break off negotiations without considering the Union's response either to Respondent's October 29 counterproposal or to its November 22 "final offer" is not compatible with a good-faith effort to reach agreement on mutually acceptable terms. The inference that Respondent was not acting in good faith when it broke off negotiations is heightened by its refusal to honor the Union's request for further negotiating meetings and by its failure and refusal to furnish the Union with the names of bargaining unit employees and information as to wage increases granted to employees during the course of negotiations as requested by the Union at the October 28 meeting. Accordingly, we conclude that the deadlock of November 22 did not justify Respondent's later unilateral imposition of its contract proposals inasmuch as the negotiations leading thereto were tainted by Respondent's refusal to furnish the Union with requested relevant information necessary to the Union's proper 'See Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers ( Bethlehem Steel. Co . Shipbuilding Division) v N L R B , 320 F 2d 615, 621(C A 3), Bethlehem Steel Co (Shipbuilding Division), 147 NLRB 977, 978 179 NLRB No. 7 NORTHLAND CAMPS, INC. consideration of its last and final offer, and its breaking off of negotiations without waiting for and considering the Union's response to either its October 29 counteroffer or to the last and final offer itself.' Upon consideration of all of the foregoing, we find, in agreement with the Trial Examiner, and in the absence of a legally cognizable impasse, that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act in refusing after November 18 to attend further negotiating meetings, in refusing on and after October 28, to advise the Union of the names of employees in the bargaining unit and of their wage increases after being requested to do so; and in unilaterally instituting changes in wages and other working conditions on December 16. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Northland Camps, Inc., Nampa, Idaho, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order. 'Cone Mills Corporation v N L R B , 373 F 2d 595 (C A 4) TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE GEORGE H O'BRIEN, Trial Examiner On April 22 and 23, 1969, a hearing was held in the above-entitled matter in Boise, Idaho, at which all parties appeared and participated. The complaint, issued by the Regional Director for Region 19 of the National Labor Relations Board on April 1, 1969, is based on a charge filed by the Union on January 8, 1969, as amended March 25, 1969, and alleges violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act Upon the entire record in this case, including my observation of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the briefs filed by counsel for the General Counsel, by the representative of the Respondent and by counsel for the Union, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Northland Camps, Inc , herein called Respondent, is an Alaska Corporation engaged in Nampa, Idaho, in the design and manufacture of relocatable buildings During its last fiscal year, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations at Nampa, Idaho, made sales of relocatable houses valued in excess of $500,000 and caused to be shipped from its Nampa plant to points outside the State of Idaho, products valued in excess of $50,000 Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act If. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED 37 Treasure Valley Metal Trades Council , affiliated with the Metal Trades Department , AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A The Issues The complaint alleges in substance that (I) Respondent refused to comply with the Union's requests of October 28, 1968, And December 2, 1968, that Respondent advise the Union of the names of employees hired or terminated since October 10, 1968, and of all wage increases since July 1968, (2) Respondent refused the Union's requests of November 27 and December 11, 1968, that it meet with and resume bargaining with the Union, and (3) Respondent on December 16, 1968, without notice to, or consultation with, the Union instituted unilateral changes in wages and other working conditions Respondent answers that it did its best to supply all information requested, admits that it refused on and after November 27 to meet or bargain further with the Union, avers that an impasse in bargaining had been reached, stating that Respondent had submitted a last and final offer to the Union on November 22, 1968, and that the Union's requests of November 27 and December 2 were therefore untimely. Respondent denies any unilateral action The complaint was amended at the hearing without objection to allege that the Union also requested bargaining on November 13 1 have treated this allegation as having been denied The Answer is signed, "Idaho Employers Council by Fred J Smith " Mr Smith, who was Respondent's chief spokesmen in negotiations with the Union testified that the impasse in bargaining was reached at the meeting with the Union on October 28, 1968 B The Bargaining Pursuant to the results of a Board-conducted election held June 4, 1968, the Union was certified on June 12, 1968, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of a unit of All production and maintenance employees employed by the Respondent at its Nampa, Idaho operations, including all plant clerical employees, janitors, trainees, and leadmen, but excluding office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. There are approximately 40 employees in the unit Respondent and the Union met briefly on July 3, 1968 Respondent was represented by its secretary, Gilbert A Freeman, who is also secretary of Respondent's parent company, Atco Industries Ltd , and whose office is in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and also represented by two agents of Idaho Employers' Council, Fred J Smith and Thomas H. Hazzard The Union was represented by its secretary, A S. Rice, and a committee of Respondent's employees The Union presented a written contract proposal, complete except for wage schedule and asked the Respondent to supply it with a list of employees' names and wages. There was no negotiation. The list of names and wages was given the Union on July 15 At the second meeting, August 6, 1968, with Mr. Freeman absent, the Union presented a wage schedule and the Respondent presented a contract proposal, complete except for wages and duration The entire meeting was 38 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD devoted to discussion of Respondent's proposals Mr. Freeman returned for the third meeting on August 14 at which Respondent submitted a second draft of its contract proposals. This second draft strengthened the proposal on management rights, reduced the previous offer of vacation benefits and added a proposal that supervisors be permitted to do production work. The August 14 meeting was devoted to a recapitulation, for the benefit of Mr Freeman of the August 6 discussions At the fourth meeting on August 27, with Mr. Freeman present, the parties got down to business, working from Respondent's second draft. Agreement was reached on I1 articles, including some matters of substance. On September 4, Rice wrote to Smith summarizing negotiations to date, listing 13 items still in dispute, and requesting that continuous meetings be held to consummate a contract A fifth meeting was held September 18. There was further discussion of Respondent's proposals of August 14 and of Rice's letter of September 4. No witness testified to any progress. Although Smith first testified that more items were agreed upon, he contradicted himself later by testifying that there were a dozen or two issues still on the table as of October 8 The sixth meeting was held October 8 with United States Commissioner of Conciliation Roche presiding. Respondent presented a third contract draft which differed from its second draft by (1) further strengthening the management rights clause, (2) adding a clause giving Respondent the absolute right to subcontract work, (3) adding a clause requiring that all union notices receive the approval of the general manager prior to posting, and (4) adding a wage schedule Respondent's third contract draft contained concessions in the area of grievances, computation of vacation time and length of probationary period of new employees Practically the entire meeting was devoted to familiarizing the Conciliator with the status of negotiations Only one additional item was agreed upon Respondent in its two prior contract drafts had proposed that overtime rates be paid only after an employee had worked 40 hours in I week, regardless of the number of hours worked in any given day Respondent, on October 8 conceded that overtime should also be paid for all time worked over 8 hours in any one day On October 10, Respondent delivered to the Union a list showing the names of all employees in the bargaining unit as of that date. The seventh and final meeting was held October 28 Respondent was represented by Smith, Hazzard, and Freeman. The Union was represented by Rice, by its attorney, Fuller, and by at least two employees of Respondent Commissioner Roche kept the parties separated throughout most of the day. Near the end of the day, in a joint meeting Fuller, speaking for the Union committee, made an oral "package proposal." Respondent's representatives, after caucausing replied through Freeman that there were several things in the Union's proposal which they did not like, but that they would take it under advisement and would make a proposal to the Union the following day, October 29, which Freeman felt sure the committee could recommend to the membership for their approval Rice requested that the employee list of October 8, and wage increases since July 15 be brought up to date. Freeman spent most of the day, October 29, with Smith preparing a fourth contract draft which he delivered personally to Rice in the early evening There was no discussion, since Freeman was pressed for time to catch a plane back to Calgary Respondent's fourth draft differed from the third by (I) incorporating a clause providing for maintenance of union membership, (2) adding a clause dating a foreman's seniority from date of hire, (3) transferring the clause permitting foremen to do bargaining unit work from the seniority clause to the management rights clause and (4) for the first time proposing a terminal date of October 31, 1971 The fourth draft contained no provision for health and welfare and restricted overtime to work over 40 hours in any l week Freeman told Rice that he was sure the document would cover the Union's desires and Rice promised to present it to the members. Upon his return to Calgary, Freeman prepared the following memorandum for the information of his superiors in the parent company November 1, 1968 TO. Mr. C. S Richardson Mr. G. P Kiefer Mr E. N Farch FROM G A. Freeman SUBJECT Union-Nampa Last Union Offer they would Recommend We Countered NAGE SCALE Starting Rate per hr. $1 75 Labourers Start $1.85 Automatic (1.85-1 Mon Prod Wkrs. Start 1.95 Progres- (1 95-2 Mons. increase of .10beginning sions (2 05-6 Mons of month after 90 days (2.15-9 Mons: $2 15-$2 50 would be merit area at Management's No limit on merit discretion Plus $ 10 at time of $.10 or up to minimum signing commencing November 1/68 05 at 6 months 10 November 1/69 05 at 12 months .10 November 1/70 Health and Welfare all As at present-50/50 on costs at Employers Cost and not part of agreement O. T. 1-1/2 X over 8 and 1-1/2 X over 8 and 40 Steward - 3 with one as 2 with one as chief chief Vacation - 1 week with pay I week with pay after 1 year after 1 year 2 weeks with pay after 3 years 2 weeks with pay after 3 years NORTHLAND CAMPS, INC. 39 Security Any existing employee may join union - if not joining authorize $5.00 per month service fee Any existing employee may join Union No service fee mailed to Freeman, Mr Freeman testified that he did not recall having seen the letter and that he knew that he was unaware of the letter and had not been informed of its content, when on November 18, he dispatched the following communication to Smith: Enclosed please find copies of contract completed as per discussion, i e All new employees required to join in 30 days Check oll All new employees may join and must then remain in Union No check off Arbitration with all costs Arbitration l each and to loser split 3rd The left hand column of Freeman's November I, memorandum is a fair summary of the proposal made by the Union Committee near the close of the October 28 meeting The right-hand column is a summary of Respondent's October 29 contract draft. Respondent's employees met on November 12 and reviewed paragraph by paragraph Respondent's proposal of October 29. Rice stated that Respondent had verbally agreed to overtime after 8 hours and stated that Mr Freeman had asked for time to negotiate a contract with a local company covering health and welfare. The meeting voted to reject Respondent's offer and asked the representatives to return to the bargaining table with the Union's original wage proposal, and not to deviate from that proposal and not to accept anything except a union shop Under date of November 13, Rice wrote to Smith Notice was distributed and a meeting was held with the employees of Northland Camps, Inc , Tuesday November 12, 1968 for the purpose of consideration of the latest contract proposal submitted by the Company The entire proposal was gone over Article by Article Reference was also made to the company's position regarding verbal committments which were not included in the last proposal submitted - overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 8 hours per day, health and welfare coverage, etc It was also mentioned that a letter confirming the inclusion of these items was requested but never received The employees, by secret ballot, rejected the Company's proposal and approved with no dissenting votes the following items to be entered in the agreement, either as an addition or substitution to these respective Articles and Sections. The letter then listed seven items, dealing with subcontracting, foremen doing production work, overtime pay, union security, termination date, health and welfare, and wages. The letter concludes The employees recommended that the Company be informed that the action taken on these issues were with unanimous support it is requested that the Company give serious consideration to all issues and the employees are taking the stand that very little area for deviation from these proposals will be considered, if any Although the carbon copy received in evidence indicates that a copy of Rice's letter of November 13 had been (1) Article 6 - 3 inclusion of words "Eight hours a day or . " and (2) Inclusion of Group Insurance clause - Article 18 We have signed four copies of the agreement on the basis that while item one above was verbally agreed to and the item inadvertently omitted in the final draft, item two at our discussions was not to be included in the contract draft and the writer feels that the Union is out of line in requesting this inclusion after our discussion regarding same At the present time these documents are being signed and passed to yourself for completion by the Union as the writer cannot visualize any reason for proceeding again to Boise in regards to this contract as we have no intention to continue to negotiate any of the items further. Our decision at the present time is, in effect, they can sign this contract or "Go their best lick." We feel that after giving the Union two or three days in which to consider this contract, that should they refuse to sign same, we should then implement the terms and conditions of the ageement and advise our staff of the contract terminology in full and our reasons for implementing the contract as presently drawn. On November 22, Smith called Rice to his office, handed him an unsigned copy of the agreement described in Freeman's letter and told Rice that this was Respondent's last and final offer. Under date of November 27, Rice wrote to Smith: Having received a revised contract proposal in behalf of Northland Camps, Inc from you last week we again submitted it to the employees for acceptance and it was overwhelmingly rejected. In view of the fact that there is no evidence that the company accorded any consideration to issues proposed by the employees, as stated in the letter dated November 13, other than the previous verbal committments being reduced to writing, there is little to support the company's intent to bargain in good faith It is our desire to set another meeting as soon as possible, preferably the early part of the first week in December, to discuss all items except 3 [Overtime pay after 8 hours] in the letter mentioned above. We are aware that your last proposal was to be your last and final offer. Considering the fact that it was overwhelmingly rejected is this still your position? If so please let us know by return mail. On December 2, Rice wrote to Smith renewing the request which he made orally on October 28 that Respondent furnish to the Union a "list of wage increases of the respective employees who have received them since July 12, 1968. Also the names of new hires or discharged employees since October 10, 1968 " On December 3, Smith dispatched to Rice by certified mail, the following letter: 40 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD December 2, 1968 Since our election with you on June 4, 1968 we have had a series of negotiations, including one called by the Federal Mediation Service Also, we have honored your requests for meetings on every occasion I would also remind you that it was your wage offer we accepted and further, that we reached agreement on the fringe benefits contained in this last and final offer On November 22, 1968, 1 submitted a last and final offer to you and requested that you take it to the employees for approval Your letter of November 27, 1968, states that the employees rejected this offer Therefore, it is most evident that we have reached a legitimate impasse Further, in order to maintain labor peace and be in a position to maintain our present level of employment, it is necessary for us to place our last and final offer into effect on December 16, 1968 Under date of December II, Rice wrote to Smith, protesting Respondent's proposed unilateral action and requesting that negotiations be resumed on December 16 Respondent on December 16, 1968, instituted the wages, hours and working conditions described in its contract draft of November 22. Respondent made no reply to the Union's letters of November 13, December 2, and December 11 Freeman, in justification of his silence testified that the letters were not addressed to him Smith's self-justification is stated in his following testimony. Well, after October 28th, the date of our last meeting, it was so obvious that we'd reached a legitimate impasse that any requests made by Mr Rice after that date would have no meaning Freeman testified that the October 29 offer to the Union did not contain a proposal on health and welfare because at that time he did not have firm prices from a local insurance company A health and welfare clause was included in his "last and final offer" because, prior to November 18 the prices had "firmed up " C Conclusions Respondent's refusal to meet with the Union is admitted by its answer and established by the evidence Respondent's refusal to advise the Union of the names of employees in the bargaining unit and wage increases, if any, granted to each is established by the evidence Respondent's unilateral changes in wages and working conditions are established by the evidence and admitted in its brief Each of these actions, unless justified, constitutes a separate violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act Since justification is an affirmative defense, the burden is on the Respondent. The sole affirmative defense stated in Respondent's answer, is that an impasse in bargaining had occurred Smith in his testimony and in his brief states that the parties came to an impasse on the subject of Union Security in the meeting of October 28, and that agreement had been reached on all other issues. I find that there was no impasse There were only seven bargaining sessions There was no bargaining at first, when the Union submitted the contract proposals, little at the third which was devoted to acquainting Mr. Freeman with the results of the second meeting, and little at the sixth meeting which was devoted to familiarizing the conciliator with the then status of negotiations Real progress was made at the seventh meeting At the conclusion of the seventh meeting, as indicated by Mr. Freeman's memorandum of November 1, 1968, the parties had not reached complete agreement on six matters of substance I find that the meeting terminated as testified to by Fuller and Barnard with the promise of Freeman to give serious consideration to the Union's package proposal and to give the Union his answer on the following day Neither party at the conclusion of the seventh and last meeting gave any indication that its position on any of the unresolved items was not subject to change Nevertheless, without waiting to see whether or what reply the Union would make to his proposals of October 29, Freeman, on November 18, 1968, wrote to Smith, revoking Smith's authority to negotiate further, directing Smith to lay an ultimatum before the Union which it could accept or "go their best lick " In his brief Respondent's consultant asserts that Respondent's unilateral action in putting into effect its "last offer" was justified by the "impasse" of October 28 Since there was no impasse, the unilateral action violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act It is true that a deadlock was created by Respondent's decision of November 18 that it would not meet nor confer further with the Union, but a deadlock created by Respondent's unfair labor practice is not a good-faith impasse, justifying unilateral action Respondent offers neither explanation nor excuse for its failure, after October 28, to advise the Union of the names of current employees, and of wage increases granted Such failure, by its long continuance, amounts to outright refusal, and constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(5) independently of whether or not bargaining negotiations at the time are in a state of impasse Finally, Respondent's consultant in his brief, and for the first time, seeks to justify breaking off negotiations by asserting the claim that the Union Committee had no real authority to negotiate He bases this claim on the testimony of employee Bernard, that when, at Respondent's request, Respondent's incomplete, inaccurate proposal of October 29 was submitted to the union membership, the bargaining committee was directed to reassert its original demands in the areas of wages and union security. This argument is a pure "legal afterthought" and should be disregarded on that ground alone Steel City Transport v N L R B, 389 F 2d 735, 740 (C A 3) All bargaining was effectively terminated by Freeman's letter of November 18, written before he had any knowledge of the results of the employee's meeting of November 12 1 further find that in context the expression of membership views as reported by Barnard did not in any way limit or restrict the authority of the Union's bargaining committee IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of Respondent, as set forth above, occurring in connection with the operations of Respondent described above have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce V THE REMEDY It has been found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices. It will therefore be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Recommended Order below, designed to effectuate the policies of the Act NORTHLAND CAMPS, INC. 41 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 Northland Camps, Inc is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act 2 Treasure Valley Metal Trades Council affiliated with the Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 3 All production and maintenance employees employed by Northland Camps, Inc , at its Nampa, Idaho, operations, including all plant clerical employees, janitors, trainees and leadmen, but excluding office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act 4 Treasure Valley Metal Trades Council affiliated with the Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO has been at all times material herein and is now the exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act 5 By refusing from and after October 28, 1968, to advise the Union of the names of employees in the appropriate unit and of wage increases granted to such employees, by refusing on and after November 18, 1968, to meet and bargain with the Union, and by making unilateral changes in the wages and other working conditions of its employees on December 16, 1968, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this proceeding, I recommend that Northland Camps, Inc , its agents, successors, and assigns, shall I Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to meet and confer with the Treasure Valley Metal Trades Council, affiliated with the Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employees in the appropriate unit (b) Refusing to advise the Union of the names of all employees in the appropriate unit and of all wage increases granted to such employees since July 15, 1968 (c) Unilaterally changing wages, rates of pay or other conditions of employment of the employees in the appropriate unit (d) In any other manner refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its employees in the appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or any other terms or conditions of employment. The appropriate unit is: All production and maintenance employees employed by the Respondent at its Nampa, Idaho operations, including all plant clerical employees, janitors, trainees, and leadmen, but excluding office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Upon request, meet with and bargain collectively in good faith with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all the employees in the appropriate unit, and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement (b) Upon request, supply the Union with all information necessary to the discharge of its statutory obligations to the employees in the appropriate unit, including, without limitation, the names of all employees in the unit, and a statement of all wage increases granted to unit employees since July 15, 1968 (c) Post at its plant in Nampa, Idaho, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix':' Copies of said notice, on forms providied by the Regional Director for Region 19, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of Respondent, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to its employees are customarily posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that the said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material (d) Notify the said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith 2 ' 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 " 'In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director for Region 19 , in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith " 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, upon request , meet with and bargain collectively in good faith with Treasure Valley Metal Trades Council , affiliated with the Metal Trades Department , AFL-CIO as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all the employees in the appropriate unit and if an understanding is reached will embody such understanding in a signed agreement The appropriate unit is All production and maintenance employees employed by Northland Camps, Inc. at our Nampa, Idaho operations , including all plant clerical employees, janitors , trainees and leadmen, but excluding office clerical employees, guards , and supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL, upon request, supply the said Union with all information which it requires to discharge its duty to you as your exclusive representative for collective bargaining WE WILL NOT change the present wages , hours or working conditions of any of the employees in the bargaining unit without first notifying the said Union of our desire to make such change , and if the Union 42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD requests, bargaining in good faith with the Union on This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days the subject of the proposed change 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 NORTHLAND CAMPS, INC. or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate (Employer) directly with the Board's Regional Office, Republic Dated By Building, 10th Floor, 1511 Third Avenue, Seattle, (Representative) (Title) Washington 98101, Telephone 583-7473.