Marland One-Way Clutch Co., Inc.

MARLAND ONE-WAY CLUTCH CO., INC. 601 Marladd One-Way Clutch Co., Inc. and Tool & Die Makers Lodge No. 113, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 12-CA-10161 August 12, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY just before the beginning of bargaining for a first contract following a Board certification , and then refusing = to bargain with the Union concerning its decision to withhold the payment. All parties appeared at the hearing and were given full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to introduce relevant evidence. At the close of the hearing the General Counsel made a short oral summation of his case.3 After the hearing -Respondent filed a brief which has been carefully considered.-, Upon the entire record in the case and my observation of the witnesses, I hereby make the following: On April 27, 1971, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent' had engaged 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. Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision' and a brief in support of its exceptions. 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 athree-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 the 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 adopts as its -Order the recommend- ed Order of the Trial Examinerand hereby orders that Respondent, Marland' One-Way' Clutch Co., Inc., of La Grange, Illinois, 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 ALBA B. MARTIN, Trial Examiner: This case was heard in Chicago, Illinois, on February 18, 1971, pursuant to a charge duly filed and served,' and a complaint issued on December , 22, 1970. The issues litigated were whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act2 by unilaterally withholding payment of a bonus to employees i The, Union filed the charge on October 20,1970. The General Counsel- issued the complaint on'December 22; 1970. 2 "Me Act" refers to the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I. THE - BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT, Respondent, Marland One-Way Clutch Co., Inc., an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in LaGrange, Illinois, is engaged in the manufacture- of mechanical clutches. Annually Respondent manufactures, sells, and distributes its completed products valued in excess of $50,000 from its LaGrange location, herein called the plant, directly to States of the United States other than the State of Illinois. Respondent admitted, and I find, that at all times material herein it is and has been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. U. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Tool & Die Makers Lodge No . 113, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, is a labor organization within the meaningof Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Certification and Bargaining Conferences Background The unilateral activity complained of herein occurred between the Union's certification on September 14, 1970 (the election was held September 3, 1970), and the first bargaining conference'on October 2, 1970. This appears to have been the first time a union has won an election among Respondent's employees, although the Union has apparent- ly tried several times before. Thus the unilateral activity occurred just, before Respondent began negotiating with a union for the first time. Respondent has existed as^a corporation since 1930. Its president and highest officer has always been and ,still is Joseph A. Marland. There is no chairman of the board of directors. Since at least 1947 Respondent has given its employees in the appropriate unit an annual "Christmas bonus," which through 1967 it gave to them just before Christmas Day. In a change announced on March 21 , 1968, for 2-4/2 years thereafter - Respondent paid out the bonus in four installments- each year, in regular paychecks, on the first U.S.C.' Sec. 151, et seq. 3 Certain obvious errors appear in the transcript of the hearing. These errors are hereby corrected. [Appendix A omitted from publication.] 192 NLRB No. 76 602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR- RELATIONS BOARD payday in April, the first payday in July, the first payday in ,October, and about- 50 percent-, of the bonus about the middle of December. The bonus-was paid in this fashion during all,of 1968 and 1969, and the fast two payments in 1970. The third and fourth quarterly payments in 1970 were not paid. Prior ; to the issuance of the, complaint on December 22, 1970, Respondent met and negotiated with the Union in 12 bargaining sessions from October 2 to December 22, 1970. The good ore bad faith of Respondent's bargaining in these sessions is not involved herein. The record contains a number of letters and memoranda to employees and one to a publisher from President Marland from January 1966, to August 27, 1970. These show that President Marland was strongly opposed to the Union and its efforts to organize the employees; but the General Counsel" did not complain that these statements contained any threats-of reprisal or'promises of benefit,' nor did they. B. Unilaterally Withholding the Third, ,Installment in 1970, 'and its Aftermath After all the years and quarters of paying the bonus, for the first,time Respondent withheld a payment, the payment of the third quarter installment in 1970, which would have been included in the employees' October 2 paychecks. The first bargaining, meetingwith the Union hadbeen setup for that date, after the Union's certification on September 14. No= announcement was made to employees or the Union in advance of the withholding. Shortly,, before the beginning of the bargaining meeting that day, which started, at 2:20." p.m., the employee committeemen told the Union's chief representative, Victor Horvath, that ' the quarterly bonus payment they had expected had not been paid. At the beginning of this meeting Horvath asked Respondent's` chief spokesman and negotiator, L. Lee Burks, Jr., about the withholding of the bonus. According to the credible and credited testimony of Horvath, who by his demeanor , and his _ testimony impressed me as a credible witness, Burks replied that "The bonus is paid"at; the discretion. of the, Company and there, has been a change of policy and it is_their decision at, this particular time to withhold it." 4 Horvath replied that the. Union represented,-the etriployees"in the bargaining unit, ` that this was a unilateral change iii. wages,, that the Union would'give,the Company, an oppor"tunny to"correct its error, and if it didn't the Union would file a charge 'the Board. Horvath also said that he would' write the Company concerning this matter` Horvath said the Union would file the charge if the quarterly` bonus Was ,not paid 'by the next, pay period,'which was "2 weeks hence. At this meeting the Union requested Respondent , to furnish it certain information to assist it in negotiating. As stated by Horvath, * On the witness stand Burks was confused as to whether at this meeting he told the Union thejCompany "would not' _or ,"could not" pay the,' bonus. By his demeanor and his , testimony Burks did not impress me that he had a clear recollection of what was said in the bargaining conferences he testified about. Respondent did not assert as a defense that ,Respondent was unable to pay the bonus. The' tt'ans&ipt of the ,heading fails to, reflect the fact that without The request was to name the people within, the bargaining unit - by classifications day of hiring, and wage , rate. To, formulate their complete program of holidays, vacation schedules, hospitalization, bonus plan, and a formula thereto and any other fringe that a cost area would afford to us that we could negotiate. [Emphasis supplied.] On October 5_1970, Respondent supplied the Union with some of the requested information, including on the subject of bonus only the following: Bonus: Christmas bonus is discretionery (sic) and based on management evaluation of business. Respondent did knot,,, ,give the Union the - requested information on the bonus, such as the names, wages, bonuses of the employees,, the bonus plan, and how each employee's bonus was formulated or calculated. On October '7, 1970,' Horvath " wrote to President Marland:5' , ' We are aware of the Company's unilateral,change in the hourly bonus rate which has been paid quarterly to the employees of the bargaining unit over the past years. To refresh your memory, may, we refer you to the statements distributed to your ` employees 'during the month of August, 1970 and the article to the Editor of the -Citizen (LaGrange Newspaper) dated- August 17, 1970, both'of which bore your signature." ` - - Since this is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act under Section 8(ax5), we are requesting that the "Christian conscience guided management" of Marland manage within the laws • of the land and, correct their error an the next weekly pay, period. Failure to do so will necessitate our filing of an unfairrlabor practice against the Company to force compliance with Federal Law. Awaiting your' response, I remain Insofar as the record showed, Respondent never answered this letter in writing. At the next negotiating session, on October 15, Respon- dent acknowledged, receiving Horvath's letter, and stated that its position ,had not changed,, and that its decision was to ,withhold-, the quarterly bonus, payment. Respondent's spokesman, Burks, gave ,no explanation other than to state that none of the employees received 'the payment. Burks testified that he told the Union that the bonus was not a part of wages and that the bonus-was determined by Mr. Marland. On December 9,1970, Respondent wrote the Union: As you may be aware, the Marland One-Way Clutch Co., has in the past paid a Christmas bonus around the middle of December to it's employees. As you are now certified ' as the sole bargaining representative for the shop employees, we will be available to discuss this issue with ydu, at your convenience, objection this letter was received in evidence. My, trial notes indicate it was received. Directing Business Representative Horvath-testified he sent it on or-about the, date it bears and President Marland testified he received it on or about the date it bears . At p. 31 of the transcript the General Counsel offered it and Respondent indicated no objection. The,transcript at p.,31 is hereby corrected to show that G.C. Exh No .,14 was received in evidence. MARLAND ONE-WAY CLUTCH CO., INC. 603 - At the December 18 bargaining meeting Respondent raised the question of the Christmas bonus . The Union took the position that the Union had originally requested information from the Company as to how it "formulates the bonus," that it had received no information from the Company , concerning how it -computes each individual's bonus, and that the Union could not intelligently negotiate on December 'I S on that any more than it could on October 2 because it had no more information now than then. At this meeting, concerning the third, quarter-bonus payment, Respondent. said that it considered the payment of it as within the -discretion of the Company , and thatjhe issue would have to take its course through the NLRB. - On December 30, 1970, the Union wrote Respondent as follows: Re: Method of Computing Christmas Bonus For Employees of Marland One-Way Clutch Co. In response to the Employer's position at the 'bargaining table regarding the Christmas bonus and also to the letter from Mr. Keith J. Aldrich to Mr. Victor` Horvath, 'dated December 9, 1970 which states the Marland One-Way Clutch Company, has in the, `past "paid- a Christmas bonus around the middle of December to its employees," As" you are now certified as the sole bargaining representative , for the shop employees, we will be available to discuss this issue with you at your 'earliest- convenience." Since we are.the bargaining agents, we must request the necessary , information regarding- ' this matter. It is impossible for us to intelligently negotiate, the ;Christmas bonus, when we have not received the necessary information from the Company as to how the, bonus was computed in, the past. In order for is to formulate and submit a proposal, to you at >the_bargaining table, regarding this matter, we are hereby `requesting that the Company submit in written form, as soon as possible, all, , information relating , in any way to, the Method the Company has used in Computing the Christmas Bonus in the past for the employees we now represent. As soon as , we receive the above mentioned informa- tion, we will contact you for the purpose of arranging a date to.negotiate this,matter. On January 19, 1971, Respondent replied to this letter as follows: - Reference is made to paragraph two of" your letter, dated December 30,'-1970, received January 4, 1971, the addressee being the undersigned. e are responding to your request by enclosing herewith ANSWER TO COMPLAINT, which- details our position on the "bonus" issue. - Attached to, this letter was a copy of Respondents answer herein. C. Contentions and Conclusions 1. Wage or gratuity Respondent contended the Christmas bonus was a gratuity, not a mandatory subject of collective bargaining, and that its unilateral withholding of it was not a",violation of the Act. The preponderance of the evidenceproved that it was" a part of wages and a mandatory subject of collective bargaining. - a. The bonus was given and paid regularly for at least 22-112 years. Although President Marland testified that its payment was,discretionary with management,,the hard fact is that it was given and paid regularly for at least 22-1/2 years. There was no proof that "any employee<was ever deprived of the payment of-the bonus during allthis time. b. President Marland's letters ,-and- memoranda to employees, and to a publisher established that he_ ,encour- aged ,employees to think of, the bonus, as avregular part of their annual earnings and income This encouragement and the regular payments were' sufficient to justify. employee expectation that the payments would continue. On January 22, 1966, President Marland wrote an employee. Your share of our company profit for 1965 is $513.66 and will be invested by ?the Profit- Sharing Trust Committee to earn interestiordividends for you. Your combined bonus and profit sharing for 1965 was $837.47. 1 - 1-1 - This is at the, rate of $0.418 per hour based on 2,000 working hours of 50 weeks' -at 40 .hours per week. [Emphasis supplied.] _ He sent a like letter to each employee, giving the respective figures in each case. - On May 15, 1967,,President Marland wrote employees: 5. If we can continue to-,make- the remainder of the year as good as the$beginriing; by redoubling ,our team play effort, then we should also en, joy,. a, good -year-end bonus and larger addition to-your profit sharing, trust. This will-apply to-those who,,have"been-on our payroll for the full year of 1967. [Emphasis supplied] On , November 7, 1967, - President , Marland - wrote employees: ' Following our 'regular annual policy to shareour profits in a Christmas bonus, we can now tell you it will be about double the bonus of.a year ago ,This is to be based on your complete 1967 earnings, provided there will be no production interruptions. _[Emphasis supplied] The last line above Mr. Marland's signature-was "Be.Wise,- Don't Unionize." - On November 13, 1967, President . Marland wrote employees: Take a look at only a few of the, benefits .you are currently receiving and remember that a dues collecting union was not necessary to obtain these benefits for you- 1. CHRISTMAS BONUS - A substantial amount, coming at a time when it really .counts. - s s Then ask yourself what you will get for-the money you will` be 'required t6, pay the union each month in the form of dues. , BE WISE'.- DON'T UNIONIZE On November 21, 1967, President Marland wrote employees: 604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We understand that the union has made some,far our promises-as to hourly rates if they get in. Promises; are cheap, but can they deliver? Remember, only the company makes the payroll . The union does not make up one cent of the payroll, it only collects dues. It, has - always been our policy , to share with the employees when it is there; lookatthe bonuses this year. I would much rather share the money with you in increased wages, bonuses and additional benefits, than pay itin 'high corporate taxes to the government) As the company has grown, your, earnings have grown. Attached ,is a slip showing what your= approximate earnings ;will be this year compared to your earnings the first year you were with us. - We have bright prospects for the future growth of this company. You have my word that a union will not be necessary for the future improvements in this company. BE WISE - DON'T UNIONIZE [Emphasis supplied.] Attached to this letter was a separate sheet of paper setting forth for each' employee ' his respective "approximate earnings for 1967," including his wages, bonus, life and hospitalization insurance, and uniforms. On December -8,1967, President Marland wrote employ- ees that although year-end bonuses were going to be down at many companies, including "DuPont" this year, Despite stiffer business,, conditions this year, your management has proved its ability by making a better profit to enable us to,pay you a 100 percent, bonus increase over last year. On"March 13,1968, President Marland wrote employees: Attached you will)' find a breakdown of 'your actual hourly earnings, including bonuses and profit sharing, since you have become a member of the Profit Sharing Plan. As you can see, your earnings have greatly increased over the past two or three years ; years in which we , have had, no dues-collecting third party. [Emphasis supplied.] At the bottom,of this memorandum to each employee was a comparison in columns for 3 years, 1965, 1966, and 1967, of his "total per hour paid by the Company to you", consisting of his hourly rate, his, Christmas bonus, and his profit sharing, and "based on 5 weeks at 40 hours per week, or 2,000 _ hours." ,,Thus this letter presented the Christmas bonus as calculated at so many cents perhour. On May ` 21, 1968, President Marland wrote all shop employees under the subject, "Partial Payment of Bonus" as follows, in part, Now that the Union salesman has played his second game and,lost again, I feel free to write you about the subject. Due to restrictions on me before you voted last Friday, I could not tell you of management's discus- sions ,on a, plan to pay out a part of the usual Christmas Bonus on the , first payday jfollowing each quarter, 6 At p. 12 of the transcript President Marland explained how this amount was determined when it was paid annually. T Respondent s' product is long lasting and requires high precision. It's one-way clutches are used in machinery in diamond and gold mines in South Africa, in nuclear power plants, in the high-speed'trains that operate between Montreal and Toronto. instead of having to wait. just before Christmas for the entire bonus. • ' s Since we do not actually know what-ourprofts may be for this year, and thus what bonus maybe available, we are arranging ' to"pay out a small part of such estimated bonus in partial-payments on the first payday following each quarter. Thus, your first addition to the regular paycheck will be with a- bonus on 'the ' first payday in April and then on the first payday in July, and again on the first payday in October - You will then receive the major balance of the Christmas Bonus at the usual time in December. Whether that will be equal to, smaller or larger than last year's very nice bonus will depend on what each of us do 'in satisfying' our real bosses, namely our good customers, and how their orders continue.- [Emphasis supplied.] On February 14, 1969, and March 20, 1970, President Marland wrote each employee his "Profit Sharing Trust Fund Report" for 1969, and for 1970. These reports showed the Christmas ,bonus as so-many cents per hour and stated that the per hour, plus-your Christmas bonus of per hour,, amounts to for each-hour worked in ADDITION TO ,.your regularly hourly, rate, for every hour worked m 1968' (1969), based on 50 weeks at 40 hours per week, or 2,000 hours." On October 18, ,1970, in a letter to a local publisher, some of which was printed, President Marland listed the benefits Respondent's employees ,enjoyed, including "a' substantial bonus paid quarterly." On August 27, 1970, President Marland wrote each employee a comparison of his pay with the Union's rate. He added 'tip the employee's basic hourly rate, his "bonus rate per year," and his ,profit sharing, 'and'called the total "Marland hourly rate total.°' Opposite - one employee's "total" Marland wrote, This "pay" is 28 percent more than the union rate below. c. 'President Marlar?d testified ' that once the amount available for the bonus, 'has been determined by management .6 the latter'then" determined the amount to be distributed to `each employee based, upon management's evaluation of the employee's contribution 'to" the "team effort" Considered in determining the latter were length and continuity of service, regularity of attendance particu- larly on' Mondays, the degree of perfection of his, work,7 lack of scrap, loyalty. Respondent keeps no writ'ten records of each employee's quantity or quality of output, and relies in , its evaluation upon management's remembrance of "each 'man's self application to the, team effort."' In the appropriate units at the time of the- hearing herein Respondent employed some 30 employees, and that number had varied down to about 24 recent years. President Marland testified that on the exhibits in a The complaint alleged, the answer admitted,' and I find, that an appropriate unit consists of all production and maintenance employees at Respondent's LaGrange, Illinois, 'plant but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. MARLAND ONE-WAY CLUTCH CO., INC. 605 evidence (as seen -above) the bonus is shown as so many cents per hour so as to "make'it simpler to understand so that even the economically illiterate grasp it." This testimony and the exhibits prove, nevertheless, that however the individual's bonus was calculated, the formula at the end was reducible to so many cents per hour and that Respondent encouraged employees to think of the bonus in terms of money they were to receive. As Respondent gave and paid out the Christmas bonus regularly for at least 22-1/2 years; as since at least 1966 Respondent has encouraged employees to think of the bonus as a regular part,6f their annual earnings and income and an expected payment or payments; and upon the entire record in the case considered as a whole; I conclude on the preponderance of the evidence that Respondent's Christ- mas - bonus to employees,- now paid in quarterly install- ments, is a part of wages, and is a mandatory subject of collective bargaining.- Compare Hooker Chemical Corpora- tion, 186 NLRB No. 49; Gravenslund Operating Company, l68 NLRB 513; General, Telephone Company of Florida, 144 NLRB 311. 2. Respondent's unilateral acts Respondent's_ vice president, Keith Aldrich, testified that management began discussing not paying the third quarter installment of the bonus in the spring of 1970, that a tentative decision was reached before the election (September 3), and that the "final decision" was made "probably just before the notices came out." No advance announcement was made to either the employees or the Union. Two employee members of the Union's negotiating committee reported to the Union's chief representative at the first bargaining meeting (October 2), shortly before the beginning of that meeting at 2:20 p.m., that the payment had - not been made. -Except for ; Aldrich's reference to "notices ' -the record is silent as to any written notice to employees that the bonus' payment , was not, included in their October 2 paycheck. Presumably Aldrich referred--to the paycheck stub which- by silence showed the bonus payment was not included' Upon all this testimony and the entire record : I conclude that Respondent's decision to withhold the payment was made and executed just prior to the making out of the October 2 paychecks and after the certification of the Union- on September 14; that the paychecks which did not include the bonus were delivered to the employees prior to the opening of the first negotiation session; that the decision was made and executed without giving the Union an opportunity to bargain concerning withholding the payment; and that by these unilateral acts Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. See N.L.R.B. v. Katz, et al., 369 U.S. 736 (1962). 3. Respondent's additional violation of Section 8(a)(5) At the first bargaining conference the Union asked for certain information-Jo assist it in bargaining, including information concerning Respondent's bonus plan and-the "formula' by which it is-paid to employees. Also requested were the names of employees, their dates of -hire, classifications, and wage rates. Although shortly thereafter Respondent furnished some of the requested information, it has never given the Union the facts enumerated above.- All Respondent gave the Union concerning the bonus, as has been seen above, was that it was "discretionary and based on management- evaluation of business." All Burks told the Union at, the next, the October 15, meeting, was that-the bonus was not a part of wages and that it was determined by Mr. Marland. All Respondent told the Union at the December 18 meeting concerning the third quarter payment was that it was within the, discretion of management. On December--30, as has been seen; the Union asked Respondent for a written statement giving all information relating in any way to the Method the Company has used in Computing the Christmas Bonus in the past for the employees we now represent. Respondent never furnished any of this information. As has been set forth above in section III, C, 1, c,-of this Decision, Respondent had a way of deciding how much bonus to give to each employee, and it could have given this information to the Union to assist the latter-in bargaining concerning the third and, fourth quarterly, payments- in 1970. The Union reasonably needed this relevant informa- tion in order to bargain intelligently concerning both payments. Under all the circumstances of this case I- hold and find that the Union was entitledto this information; that Respondent's failure to supply itprevented the Union- from being able to bargain intelligently concerning Respondent's decision to withhold the third bonus payment in 1970, and also its decision to withhold the fourth bonus payment in 1970; and that by its action in not supplying the requested information so that the Union could bargain intelligently concerning the third `quarterly -payment, Respondent further violated Section 8(ax5) and (1) of the Act. - - IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON. COMMERCE The activities of Respondent set forth in -section III, above, occurring in connection with, Respondent's opera- tions described in section I, 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 To remedy its unfair labor practices _ found above Respondent will be required to cease -and desist from such conduct and from any like or related conduct, and,to take certain affirmative action which I find necessary to remedy and to remove the effect of the unfair labor practices and to effectuate the policies of the Act., - - Consistent ;with the Boards policy to,direct a respondent to restore the status quo where the respondent has taken unlawful unilateral action to the detriment of its employees, Respondent will be ordered to make-whole eachemployee in the appropriate unit by paying to him an amount equal to what his third quarterly 1970 bonus.payment would have been as calculated by the system or formula previously used 606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in setting the bonus as shown by the testimony and exhibits and findings set forth above herein. As withholding the requested information prevented the- Union from being able- to bargain intelligently concerning the fourth quarterly bonus payment in 1970 and subsequent bonus paymentsRespondent will be ordered to supply the Union with the requested information and to bargain with th TU"i1 concerning the fourth quarterly bonus-payment in 91Oand subsequent bonus payments. In accordance with the Board's normal practice, I shall order that the backpay awards be paid with interest at 6 percent per annum, to be computed in the manner set forth in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent, Marland One-Way Clutch to., Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. - 2. Tool & Die Makers Lodge No. 113, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. - 3. By unilaterally deciding to and withholding the payment of the, third bonus installment in 1970 to, employees in an, appropriate unit, without first giving the certified, Union an opportunity to bargain concerning the matter, Respondent has violated and is violating, Section 8(a)(5), and (1) of the Act. 4. By failing towsupply requested information which was relevant and reasonably necessary to the Union's intelligent bargaining concerning the bonus, Respondent refused to bargain with the Union concerning Respondent's decision to withhold payment of the, third quarterly bonus installment in 1970 and thereby has further violated and is violating Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the preponderance of the evidence in the entire record considered as a whole, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I,hereby issue the following recommended: 9 ORDER Respondent, Marland One-Way Clutch Co., Inc., of LaGrange, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desistfrom: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union- concerning the payment, of Christmas bonuses to its employees within the appropriate unit represented-by the Union. (b) Unilaterally terminating bonus - payments of its employee's within the appropriate unit represented by the Union. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with the efforts of the Union to bargain collectively. 2. Take the following affirmative action which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request bargain collectively with the Union concerning the payment of the fourth quarterly- installment, of the 1970'Christmas bonus,. and any bonus installments, to employees within theappropriate unit represented by the Union. ; , . (b) Make whole ,the employees- in the appropriate unit in 1970 for any loss they may have suffered by reason of Respondent's unilateral withholding of the third quarterly bonus payment in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." _ -_ (c) Supply any information requested ^by the Union which is relevant and reasonably. needed by the Union in order for it to bargain intelligently with Respondent concerning Christmas bonuses and any bonuses. (d), Preserve and, upon request, make -available to the Board or, its= agents, for examination and copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel' records and reports, and all other, records necessary to -analyze the amount of backpay due under this - Decision.' (e) Post at its plant in LaGrange, Illinois, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix B."10 Copies `of said notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 13 (Chicago, Illinois), after' 'being duly signed by Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by it 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 Respondent to 'insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,'or' covered by any other material. , (f) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Decision, what steps have been taken to-comply herewith." 9 In the- event no exceptions are filed as provided by.Section 102.46 of the Rules and, Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the, findings, conclusions,, recommendations, and Recommended Order herein shalt, as provided in section 102.48 of the Rules and Regulations'- be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and order, and, all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes: -' 'O,In the event that the Board's Orderis;enforced by a judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading `POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NA'T'IONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD" shall be changed to read "POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING AN ORDER-OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.'.' _ 11 In the event that this-icommended Order is adopted by the Board after exceptions ,have been filed, notify the Regional Director for Region 13, in wnting, within 20 days from ' the date of`this Order, what steps Res ndent has tak toco ^^ ^^*a^%*^ APPENDIX 'B NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES, POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Tool &Die Makers Lodge No. 1,131, International , Associa- tion of Machinists ' and Aerospace Workers; AFL-CIO, by unilaterally - withholding the payment of any Christmas bonus or - other bonus or , any installment thereof, or any other term or condition of-employment MARLAND ONE-WAY CLUTCH CO., INC. of any employee in the appropriate bargaining unit in derogation of the rights of the Union. WE WILL NOT engage in any like or related conduct which interferes with, restrains, or coerces you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL supply the Union with all information requested by it which is relevant and reasonably necessary for the Union to be able to bargain intelligently with us concerning bonuses. WE WILL pay the third quarterly installment of the 1970 bonus to our employees in the appropriate, unit, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per annum. The appropriate unit consists of: Alproduction and maintenance employees at our LaGrange, Illinois, plant, but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. Dated By 607 MARLAND ONE-WAY CLUTCH Co., INC. (Employer) (Representative) Title) This is an official notice and must not be defaced by anyone. 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 or compliance with its provisions, may be directed to the Board's Office, 881 U.S. Courthouse and Federal Office Building, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604,, Telephone 312-353-7572.