Teledyne, Inc.

TABER INSTRUMENTS, DIV. OF TELEDYNE, INC. Taber Instruments, Division of Teledyne, Inc. and International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 3-CA-3740 October 27, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND ZAGORIA On July 8, 1969, Trial Examiner Charles W Schneider issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the 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 and the Charging Party filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, together with supporting briefs. 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 in this proceeding and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in this proceeding, 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 the Respondent, Taber Instruments, Division of Teledyne, Inc., North Tonawanda, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Representation Proceeding' 'Administrative or official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding, Case 3-RC-4118, as the term "record" is defined in Sec 102 68 and 102 69(f) of the Board's rules (Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, National Labor Relations Board, Series 8, as amended) See LTV Electrosystems, inc , 166 NLRB No 81, enfd 388 F 2d 683 (C A 4), Golden Age Beverage Co , 167 NLRB No 24, Intertype Co v Penello, 269 F Supp 573 (D C Va ), 345 CHARLES W SCHNEIDER, Trial Examiner Upon a petition for an election filed on March 15, 1967, by the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, an election pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election was conducted on May 4, 1967, under the supervision of the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board for Region 3, at the North Tonawanda, New York, plant of Taber Instruments, Division of Teledyne, Inc., herein called the Respondent. In an appropriate unit, 50 votes were cast against the Union, 36 votes were cast for the Union, and 2 ballots were challenged. Pursuant to timely objections to conduct of the employer affecting the results of the election filed by Respondent on May 8, 1967, an investigation was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director and an order was issued directing a hearing on said objections On January 31, 1968, the Regional Director issued an order consolidating Case 3-RC-4118 with unfair labor practice Case 3-CA-3305 for the purposes of a hearing before a duly designated Trial Examiner. A hearing on the consolidated cases was held on March 6, 1968, and on June 5, 1968, Trial Examiner Thomas Maher issued his decision recommending to the Board that the election held in Case 3-RC-4118 be set aside and that said case be remanded to the Regional Director to conduct a new election The Respondent filed exceptions to this Trial Examiner's Decision on June 26, 1968. On August 9, 1968, the Board issued a Decision and Order in Taber Instruments, Division of Teledyne, Inc Z adopting the Trial Examiner's Decision and severing Cases 3-CA-3305 and 3-RC-4118 and remanding Case 3-RC-4118 to the Regional Director for the purpose of conducting a second election Pursuant to the Board's Decision and Order, on September 13, 1968, the Regional Director for Region 3 conducted a second election. Out of approximately 99 eligible voters, 58 cast ballots for the Union, 32 against and 6 ballots were challenged. The Respondent timely filed objections to conduct of election and to conduct affecting results of election on September 19, 1968, and an investigation was conducted by the Regional Director in accordance with Section 102 69 of the Board's Rules and Regulations. As a result of such investigation, a Report on Objections was issued by the Regional Director on December 6, 1968, in which he found that the Respondent's objections raised no substantial or material issues affecting the results of the election, recommended that the objections be overruled, and that a Certification of Representative issue On December 30, 1968, Respondent filed with the Board in Washington, D.C , exceptions to the Regional Director's report on objections together with a supporting brief On February 27, 1969, the Board issued a Decision and Certification of Representative in which after consideration of the entire record in the case, it adopted the Regional Director's findings and recommendations and certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the designated unit. Intertype Co v N L R B. 401 F 2d 41 (C A 4), Follett Corp, et al. 164 NLRB No 47, enfd 397 F 2d 91 (C A 7), Sec 9(d) of the Act '172 NLRB No 169 179 NLRB No. 59 346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Unfair Labor Practice Case On March 21, 1969, the Union filed an unfair labor practice charge in which it alleged that since on or about Mar,:h 11, 1969, the Respondent refused and continues to refuse to bargain with the Union. On April 8, 1969, the General Counsel, by the Regional Director, issued a complaint and notice or hearing alleging that commencing on or about March 11, 1969, Respondent had committed unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act by refusing to bargain with the Union upon request' Thereafter, Respondent filed an Answer to the complaint admitting certain allegations of the complaint and denying others In its Answer Respondent, inter alia, admitted the following allegations of the complaint (I) the filing and service of the charge, (2) the jurisdictional allegations, (3) the allegation that Leland E Coulter was Respondent's general manager, and (4) the appropriateness of the unit Respondent denied (1) that a majority of the employees in the unit had selected the Union as their representative and that the Board had certified the Union, (2) that the Union is the exclusive representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, (3) that the Union has requested the Respondent to bargain collectively, and (4) that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act The answer additionally set forth several affirmative defenses to the complaint Respondent contends that the first election was properly conducted and should not have been set aside, and that therefore the second election was invalidly conducted and thus a nullity. Secondly, Respondent asserts that if it was proper to conduct the second election, that election should have been set aside for the reasons appearing in Respondent's objections to that election Also, the answer urges that the Board deprived the Respondent of due process of law by denying the Respondent's exceptions to the Regional Director's report on objections without ordering an evidentiary hearing and rendering "an independent opinion of the case " On May I, 1969, counsel for the General Counsel filed a motion for summary judgment and Issuance of Trial Examiner's Decision, together with a supporting argument. In his argument, counsel for General Counsel asserts that Respondent's answer merely raises issues which had previously been decided by the Board in the representation proceeding Therefore, General Counsel urges that the official record in the representation case together with Respondent's admissions contained in its answer establish the violations alleged in the complaint as a matter of law, making a hearing unnecessary. On May 2, 1969, I issued an Order to Show Cause on General Counsel's motion for summary judgment and issuance of Trial Examiner's Decision in which I directed the parties to show cause before me, if cause they had, on or before May 19, 1969, subsequently extended to May 27, 1969, as to whether or not the General Counsel's motion should be granted On May 26, 1969, Respondent filed a statement in opposition to General Counsel's motion for summary judgment A response in the nature of a brief supporting the General Counsel's motion and requesting certain 'On April 21, 1969, counsel for the Regional Director amended the complaint and notice of hearing to allege that Respondent is a Delaware corporation rather than a New York corporation as originally alleged in the complaint remedial relief was filed by the Union on the same date RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Respondent's basic contentions are that it is entitled to a hearing and that there are unresolved issues of fact and credibility raised by Respondent's objections to the rerun election which were not resolved in the Regional Director's Report on Objections and which therefore require a hearing The Respondent asserts that Section 10(b) of the Act, Section 5 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U S C 554), and Section 101 10 of the Board's Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, require a hearing in unfair labor practice cases as a matter of law. There is, however, no absolute right to a hearing where there are no litigable issues. Summary judgment is appropriate in such instances See M N Landau Stores, Inc d/bla Clark's Discount Department Store, 175 NLRB No 53 In the disposition of objections to an election, a hearing is not required unless substantial and material issues are raised by the objections As the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has said, "If there is nothing to hear, then a hearing is a senseless and useless formality " Air Control Window Products, Inc , 355 F 2d 245, 249 (C A 5) See also Bata Shoe Co , 377 F 2d 821, 826 (C A 4) " there is no requirement, constitutional or otherwise, that there be a hearing in the absence of substantial and material issues crucial to determination of whether National Labor Relations Board election results are to be accepted for purposes of certification." Other courts of appeals are in accord. See, e g , N L R B v Certified Testing Laboratories, Inc , 387 F 2d 285 (C A 3), N L R B v Tennessee Packers, Inc , 379 F.2d 172 (C A 6), cert. denied 389 U S 958; N L R B v National Survey Service, inc , 361 F 2d 199, 208 , (C A 7), N L R B v Hollywood Brands, Inc, 398 F 2d 294 (C A 7) The cases cited by Respondent are not contrary authority Those cases hold that a hearing is required where there are substantial and material issues They are not to be construed as requiring a hearing where there is no such issue In any event, in its Decision and Certification of Representative in Case 3-RC-4118, after consideration of the entire record, the Board adopted (and that action is binding on the Trial Examiner at this stage of the proceeding) the Regional Director's findings that the Respondent's objections raised no substantial or material issues affecting the results of the election The question of the validity of the election and the certification was thus decided by the Board in the representation case It is established Board policy, in the absence of newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence or special circumstances not to permit litigation before a Trial Examiner in an unfair labor practice case of issues which were or could have been litigated in a prior related representation proceeding ° In the representation proceeding the Respondent presented to the Board, or had opportunity to present, all its present contentions concerning the validity of the election and the certification. The Respondent is thus seeking to relitigate the Board determination Respondent does not allege that it possesses new evidence or that special circumstances exist. 'Howard Johnson Company, 164 NLRB No 121, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 163 NLRB No 71 See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company v N L R B, 313 U S 146, 162, Rules and Regulations and TABER INSTRUMENTS, DIV. OF TELEDYNE, INC. Respondent asserts in its answer that it was deprived of due process of law by the Board's action in denying Respondent's exceptions to the Regional Director's report on objection "without rendering an independent opinion of the case " That contention is not supported The case cited by the Respondent as authority for this proposition (Pepsicola Bottling Co v N L.R.B, 409 F.2d 676 (C A 2)), is inapplicable In the Pepsicola case the Regional Director, pursuant to authority authorized in the statute (Sec 3(b)) and delegated in the Board's Rules (Sec. 102.67(b)) issued a final decision. Under Board practice such decision is not subject to plenary review by the Board, but only to discretionary review through permission granted by the Board upon certiorari principles (Rules 102.67(b)-(f) inclusive) The employer in Pepsicola sought such review, which the Board denied. The court held that the Board was required to review the record before it could issue an effective certification. In the present case, however, the decision was made by the Board and the record was reviewed The Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent Election (authorized under Section 102 62(b) of the Board's Rules) pursuant to which the election here was held, provides that all post-election procedure "shall be in conformity with the Board's Rules and Regulations." Section 102.69(c) of the Rules provides that objections to elections in such cases shall be decided by the Board. The Board made such a decision, issued a formal Decision and Certification of Representative which recites that the Board considered the entire record in the case. The Board then adopted the Regional Director's findings and recommendations, overruled the objections and certified the Union The Board thus reviewed the matter and "rendered an independent opinion in the case." The Pepsicola decision is therefore inapplicable See also M N Landau Stores, Inc, dlbla Clark's Discount Department Store, 175 NLRB No. 53, Mar Salle, Inc, d/b/a Marsalle Convalescent Home, 173 NLRB No. 69. As is hereinafter found, the Respondent refused to bargain collectively with the Union upon request. There thus being no unresolved issues requiring an evidential hearing, or newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence or special circumstances, the certification of the Board constitutes the law of the case at this stage of the proceeding Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is hereby 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 a Delaware corporation with its principal office and sole plant located in North Tonawanda, New York During the past calendar year, a representative period, in the course and conduct of its business operations, Respondent manufactured, sold, and distributed products valued in excess of $50,000, of which products valued over $50,000 were shipped from said plant directly to states of the United States outside the State of New York. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Statements of Procedure, National Labor Relations Board, Series 8, as amended, Sec 102 67(f) and 102 69(c) 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED 347 International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, is now 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 In accordance with the stipulation for certification upon consent election, it is found that the following employees of the Respondent constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act All production and maintenance employees, technical employees, draftsmen, and plant clerical employees at the Employer's North Tonawanda, New York plant, excluding all salesmen, office clerical employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act As set forth above, on September 13, 1968, a majority of Respondent's employees in the appropriate unit selected the Union as their collective-bargaining representative in a rerun election by _]secret ballot under the supervision of the Regional Director for Region 3 On February 27, 1969, the Board duly certified the Union as such representative It is accordingly found that at all times since February 27, 1969, and continuing to date, the Union has been the representative for the purposes of collective bargaining of the employees in the said unit, and by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act, has been, and is now, the exclusive representative of all the employees in said unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment. THE REFUSAL TO BARGAIN The complaint alleges that commencing on or about March 6, 1969, and continuing to date, the Union requested the Respondent to bargain collectively, and that commencing on or about March 11, 1969, and at all times thereafter, Respondent refused to bargain with the Union. In its answer Respondent denies both allegations Counsel for General Counsel attached to his Motion for Summary Judgment and Issuance of Trial Examiner's Decision a copy of a telegram dated March 6, 1969, a letter of the same date, and a further letter dated March 18, 1969, from Harry Shaw, International representative of the Union to Leland E. Coulter, general manager of Respondent. (Exhs. 7, 8, 9). All 3 documents request that a representative of Respondent meet with the Union for purposes of collective bargaining. Also attached to the Motion for Summary Judgment as exhibits 10 and 11 are 2 letters from L. E. Coulter to Shaw, dated March 11, 1969, and March 25, 1969, in response to Shaw's communications of March 6 and 18. The March 11 letter declines the request to bargain, the effect of the March 25 letter is to reiterate the refusal. The Order To Show Cause issued on the motion for summary judgment directed the Respondent, if it filed a response, to state specifically whether it denied the authenticity of any of the exhibits attached to the motion The Respondent has not responded to that direction. It is therefore found that the exhibits establish that the Union requested the Respondent to bargain on March 6 and 18, 1969, and that the Respondent on March 11 and 25, 1969, 348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD refused to bargain. By such action the Respondent has refused to bargain collectively in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act and has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. THE REMEDY In its response to the show cause order, the Union requests specific affirmative relief For the reasons set forth below, these requests are denied. The Union first requests that the Respondent be ordered to furnish the Union on demand a list of the names and addresses of all employees within the unit with job classifications, rates of pay, and fringe benefits and to maintain such list for 3 years The Union, of course, is entitled to essential information pertaining to the bargaining unit prior to and during collective bargaining negotiations,' but there is insufficient evidence in the record of this case to suggest that a request for such information may be denied once the certification is assented to or judicially confirmed Although the Respondent did not comply with a request in the Union's March 18, 1969, letter for production of similar information, this refusal was based on Respondent's assertion that the certification was invalid. In the context of the present facts and background I do not assume that the Respondent will similarly refuse to supply such information after the issue of the validity of the certification is finally settled. In the cases cited by the Union,' circumstances existed which warranted the conclusion that a specific order would be required to insure the timely production of information concerning the employees in the unit Absent a showing of similar circumstances in this case, such an order is deemed inappropriate. In any event, the order recommended herein is broad enough to require the furnishing of information essential to negotiating and to discharge of the Union's duties as representative The Union's request for an order providing reasonable access to bulletin boards for three years is similarly deemed unwarranted in these circumstances Remedial action of similar nature is sometimes appropriate in instances of aggravated unfair labor practices,' but absent evidence that the Union has experienced any problem of communication or personal access to the Respondent's employees, the Union's request does not appear to be related to the unfair labor practice found, or to be an appropriate remedy for it. William L Bonnell Co , 170 NLRB No. 14; Playboy of Miami, 160 NLRB 1617. The Union also requests that the Respondent be ordered to make the employees whole for losses suffered 'See, e g , Cowles Communications , Inc. 172 NLRB No 204, Standard Oil Company of California. Western Operations . Inc, 166 NLRB No 45 enfd 399 F 2d 639 (C A 9), Sylvania Electric Products, Inc, 154 NLRB 1756, enfd 358 F 2d 591 (C A 1), Whitin Machine Works , 108 NLRB 1537, enfd 127 F 2d 593 (C A 4), cert denied 349 U S 905 'Rockwell Standard Corp, 166 NLRB No 23, Shell Oil Co (Roxana, Ill ), 167 NLRB No 32, N L R B v Boston Herald- Traveler Corporation, 210 F 2d 134 (C A 1), Vanette Hosiery Mills, 80 NLRB 1116, enfd 179 F 2d 504 (C A 5), J P Stevens Co, Inc, 163 NLRB No 24, Marlene Industries Corporation , 166 NLRB No 58 'See e g , Marlene Industries , supra,. Great Lakes Screw Corp , 164 NLRB No 20, J P Stevens and Co . Inc, 163 NLRB No 24, enfd in part 388 F 2d 896 (C A 4), Scott's Inc , 159 NLRB 1795, enfd in part 383 F 2d 230 (C A D C ), H W Elson Bottling Co, 155 NLRB 714, enfd in part 379 F 2d 223 (C A 6) because of the company's refusal to bargain I find insufficient justification for such an order. Although this problem is currently under consideration by the Board in several pending cases,' in a number of similar cases the Board has denied compensatory relief of such character Saks and Company, 160 NLRB 682, United Insurance Co, 162 NLRB 439, Monroe Auto Equipment Co., Hartwell Division, 164 NLRB No. 144; Louisburg Sportswear Co, 173 NLRB No. 101; Presto Manufacturing Co, 172 NLRB No. 30, enfd 413 F.2d 1085 (C.A.D C.); Marriott In-Flight Services, 171 NLRB No. 102; A H. Belo Corporation, 170 NLRB No 175, enfd. in part 411 F 2d 959 (C.A. 5), Preston Products Company, Inc , 158 NLRB 322, enfd in part, remanded in part 392 F.2d 801 (C.A D C ), cert denied 392 U S. 906. In the instant case no evidential record was made or offered to support the propriety of the requested reimbursement order, such as facts or a statistical basis indicating reasonable possibility that the employees may have suffered financial or other losses as a consequence of the refusal to bargain, the actual existence and amount of which could then be determined in a backpay proceeding. Such a record is a prerequisite to a reimbursement order Otherwise the matter is so speculative as not to warrant an order. Accordingly the compensatory relief requested is denied. The Union also requests that all provisions of any contract negotiated between it and the company be made retroactive to the date of certification. That request is also denied. The Union has cited no case, and I am aware of none, in which the Board has granted such retroactive relief. In similar circumstances the Board recently declined to deviate from its existing policy of denying retroactive remedial orders in cases involving violations of Section 8(a)(5) (Georgia Highway Express, Inc , 171 NLRB No 111; Saks and Company, 160 NLRB 682, enfd. 385 F.2d 301 (C.A.D C )), and there is insufficient evidence in this record to warrant departure from the existing policy. The Union also requests a precontractual procedure for the settling of grievances terminating in compulsory and binding arbitration. A grievance and arbitration procedure of such character is normally a matter for collective bargaining and not imposed appropriately as a remedy for unfair labor practices in circumstances, such as presumably these are, where the unfair labor practice is based on good faith doubt as to the validity of the certification. The request is therefore denied. For purposes of determining the effective period of duration of the certification, the initial year of certification shall be deemed to begin on the date the Respondent commences to bargain in good faith with the Union as the recognized bargaining representative in the appropriate unit.' Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I recommend that the Board issue the following- 'Ex-Cell-0 Corp, Case 25-CA-2377, TXD-80-67, Zinke's Foods, Case 30-CA-372, TXD-662-66, Herman Wilson Lumber Company, Case 26-CA-2536, TXD-757-66 'The purpose of this provision is to insure that the employees in the appropriate unit will be accorded the statutorily prescribed services of the collective-bargaining agent for the period provided by law See Mar-Jac Poultry Company , Inc, 136 NLRB 785, Commerce Company dlbla Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229, enfd 328 F 2d 600 (C A 5), Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419, 1421 , enfd 350 F 2d 57 (C A 10) TABER INSTRUMENTS, DIV OF TELEDYNE, INC. ORDER Taber Instruments , Division of Teledyne, Inc, its officers , agents, successors , and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit' All production and maintenance employees, technical employees , draftsmen , and plant clerical employees at the Employer's North Tonawanda , New York plant, excluding all salesmen, office clerical employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act (b) Interfering with the efforts of said Union to negotiate for or represent employees in said appropriate unit as the 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 International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit with respects to rates of pay, wages, hours of work , and other terms and conditions of employment, and embody in a signed agreement any understanding reached (b) Post at its North Tonawanda , New York, plant, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix "I" Copies of said notice, on forms to be provided by the Regional Director of Region 3, 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 (c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Recommended Order, what steps it has taken to comply herewith " "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 of Region 3, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith " 349 APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of The National Labor Relations Board WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of all our following employees All production and maintenance employees, technical employees, draftsmen, and plant clerical employees at our North Tonawanda, New York, plant, excluding all salesmen, office clerical employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL NOT interfere with the efforts of the Union to negotiate for or represent the employees in the appropriate unit as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative WE WILL bargain collectively with the Union as exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit, and if an understanding is reached we will sign a contract with the Union Dated By TABER INSTRUMENTS, DIVISION OF TELEDYNE, INC (Employer) (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. Any questions concerning this notice may be directed to the Board's Regional Office, Fourth Floor, The 120 Building, 120 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York 14202, Telephone 716-842-3100