Golconda Corp.

BASTIAN-BLESSING 609 Bastian-Blessing, Division of Golconda Corporation and Local 893, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO. Case 7-CA-8433 December 16, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS thereafter continuing, the self-insured program, failed to bargain in good faith in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act,2 and (b) whether the amended charge, alleging a further violation in the Company's concurrent change in life insurance carriers, was untimely filed on February 16. Upon the entire record,3 including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses , and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Company, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT On June 22, 1971, Trial Examiner Marion C. Ladwig issued the attached Decision in this proceed- ing. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the record and the Trial Examiner's Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the Trial Examiner's rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt his recommended Order. 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 Examiner and hereby orders that Bastian-Blessing, Division of Golconda Corporation, Grand Haven, Michigan, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's recommended Order. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MARION C. LADWIG, Trial Examiner: This case was tried at Grand Haven, Michigan, on April 19, 1971.1 The charge was filed by the Union on January 22 (amended February 16), and the complaint was issued on February 22. The case arose on August 1 when the Company, faced with using medical and hospitalization costs under the umon-negotiat- ed contributory health insurance plan, unilaterally-and without any notice to the Union--canceled the Aetna group health policy and substituted a self-insured program. The Union expressed fears that the Company would "shave claims to save money," made inquiries (still unanswered at the trial) about adequate funding of the self-insured program, and repeatedly requested a return to Aetna. The primary issues are (a) whether the Company, the Respon- dent, by unilaterally substituting on August 1, and I All dates are from August 1970 until May 1971 unless otherwise stated 2 The Company, without explanation, moves in its brief to strike from its answer the affirmative defense that the Board must defer to the I. JURISDICTION The Company, an Idaho corporation, is engaged in the manufacture of food service equipment at its plant in Grand Haven, Michigan, where it annually ships products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State. The Company admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Rise in Costs Aetna Life Insurance Company had been the Company's group insurance carrier since World War II. Its Group Policy GC-40,636, originally issued in 1959, contained the provisions of the contributory health insurance plan negotiated by the Union for the approximately 166 employees in the so-called Carpenters Unit (described hereafter) at the Grand Haven, Michigan, plant. The employees' weekly contribution was $1, about 40 percent of the total cost of insurance. The Aetna group policy, which was in effect until August 1 , also covered (with varying provisions) two other classes of employees : those in the Grand Haven plant represented by the Sheet Metal Workers, and other employees in this plant and at other locations. In the fiscal year ending April 20, 1967 (as reported on Form D-2 to the Department of Labor), the total premiums paid Aetna (for over 1,500 employees) amounted to $395,318. Aetna paid out benefits , and put in reserves, a total of $312,696, and refunded over $56,000 to the Company. By fiscal 1969, with somewhat fewer employees, the total premiums had increased almost $100,000, to $493,372, and the total benefit charges had increased over $229,000 (73 percent) to $541 ,852. Instead of a cash rebate as in 1967, there was a deficit in 1969 of $92 ,883. (The 1969 Form D-2 shows that Aetna retained $30,053 for expenses, as compared to fiscal 1968 expenses of $28,765-an increase of less than $1 ,500. In fiscal 1967, which included a period of time when the Company's own employees were processing claims for Aetna, the Aetna expenses were $15,559. The amount of commissions decreased from contractual arbitration procedure for a resolution of this matter. The unopposed motion is granted. 3 The Company's unopposed motion to correct transcript and substitute exhibit, dated May 14, is granted. 194 NLRB No. 95 610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD $3,756 in 1967 to $2,625 in 1969, whereas taxes increased from $6,776 to $11,725.) Despite the increased costs, the Union negotiated further health benefits in its new 3-year collective-bargaining agreement, effective from December 1, 1969, through November 30, 1972. Nothing was said in the negotiations about canceling the Aetna policy or changing carriers. I note that in the preceding 3-year agreement, which expired on November 30, 1969, the article on health insurance read: "The Company and the Umon will provide a contributory insurance plan for all full time employees coming under this agreement . . . as covered in The Group Insurance Plan Booklet dated 4/20/64." (That 40-page employee booklet, issued by Aetna, contained "certain terms" of Aetna Group Policy GC-40,636, the master ,contract between Aetna and the Company.) In the new agreement, reference to the old Aetna booklet (which described the previous benefits) was deleted and the "principal features" of the increased benefits were summarized. This brief summary, consisting of only a few lines in the printed agreement, clearly referred to the Aetna plan, and did not purport to detail the benefits of the plan (which were contained in the 56-page group policy, and the "essential features" of which were described in the above-mentioned 40-page Aetna employee booklet, as required by the Aetna group policy). The summary did not specify such group benefits as the $4,000 accidental death provision, the 120-day maximum hospital confine- ment, the $730 maximum in-hospital medical expense, etc. Referring to the plan's surgical expense benefits, described in six pages of the Aetna employee booklet, the summary merely stated, "Surgical schedule increased from $420.00 to $540.00." Concerning the Aetna plan's major medical expense benefits, described in seven pages of the employee booklet (including two pages of exclusions and limitations), the summary stated, "Major Medical maximum benefit increased from $10,000.00 to $20,000.00." Thus, I find that although the reference to the old Aetna employee booklet was deleted, the Company and the Union still bargained for a continuation of the Aetna plan. (Following these 1969 negotiations, the Company contracted with Aetna to amend Group Policy GC-40,636 to provide the increased benefits.) B. Unilateral Action 1. Delayed announcement and union protests On August 1, without a notice of any kind to the Union, the Company canceled the Aetna insurance, substituted a new insurance carrier for the life and accidental death insurance, and set up a new section in its Chicago office to process a self-insured group health program. The Union received its first notice of the unilateral action 2 weeks later, on August 14, when the Company personally notified the Union and posted notices, addressed to all employees of the parent corporation. The notice stated that the management "feels that this direction will bring a closer relationship between the company and its employees" and expedite claims. It emphasized that there would be no change in the present benefits, and referred to the Company's "strong interest and responsibility in paying the obligations," and its "interest that the employee recover all costs to which he is entitled." The personal notice was given by David Wessell, industrial relations manager at the Grand Haven plant, to Union President John Dennis and another union represent- ative. Dennis (who impressed me as an honest, forthright witness) credibly testified that he asked Wessell why this change was made and Wessell responded that it was to save money. (Wessell' testified that he answered, "I don't really know why but I believe that there would be some cost savings and of course we can improve the service to the employees.") Three weeks later, on September 3, the Union filed a grievance, requesting the Company to return to Aetna "as the group insurance carrier for all members" of the Umon. The Company denied the grievance, as untimely, on September 8. As stated in footnote 2 above, the Company-without explanation-moved in its brief to strike its affirmative defense in which it asserted that the Board must defer to the contractual arbitration procedure (and also indicated its willingness to waive the time limits to enable the Union to pursue the grievance to arbitration). On September 9, the Union (and the Sheet Metal Workers) wrote the Company a letter, asserting that the Company's unilateral action violated its bargaining obliga- tion to the unions, demanding that "Aetna be restored as the group carrier retroactively to August 1," and stating, "We hereby particularly give you notice that we intend to take every action afforded to us by the law if Aetna is not restored within a reasonable time." The letter also requested the D-2 forms, and requested "a written letter of explanation as to why you feel this change is indicated. What is the advantage to the company in making the change?" In response the Company furnished the annual reports, but it failed to give the requested written explanation. 2. Subsequent bargaining a. Self-insured health plan On September 23 and October 8, the Company and the Union met to discuss the matter. On both dates, the local management was joined by Richard Watson, the director of industrial relations for the parent corporation. (The Company had made the unilateral changes at the corporate level.) The evidence indicates that before these meetings were held, Watson and the local management had already decided that the Company was willing to discuss the Union's objections, and perhaps make certain modifica- tions, but that the Company would continue with the self- insured health program which had been put into effect corporation-wide. Leonard Scott, the administrative man- ager at the Grand Haven plant, testified: Q. Is it still your testimony that it was the Company's position that maybe you could rescind the ... self-insured plan, is that your testimony? A. I didn't say that. * r Q. During September and October 1970 was it the Company's position that perhaps the Company would BASTIAN-BLESSING 611 go back to a carrier . . . and would rescind the self- insured plan? A. Mr. Watson and myself . . . decided to listen to what the Umon had to say about this program and see if the allegations were in fact true, and see if , there was a way we could satisfy their apprehension and yet continue with the program that had been established and had been running for sometime. [Emphasis supplied.] As previously indicated, the written announcement of the changes had been in the form of a notice to "all employees" of the corporation (which then had three, now two, other plants). It appears unlikely that the parent corporation, represented in these two meetings by Watson, would voluntarily rescind the action for all or part of the Grand Haven plant, after having canceled its entire group policy with Aetna. Moreover, Administrative Manager Scott impressed me as being rather evasive at times. At one point, when asked if he was told whether or not he could go back to an insurance carrier, he stated he could not answer that question. He did not state why he could not answer. Later, however, he positively denied that anyone told him what the Company's position was (before admitting what he and Corporate Industrial Relations Director Watson had decided, as quoted above). Still later he testified that "No one from the corporation said to me directly" that he could go back to a carrier. He appeared to be attempting to conceal facts, rather than testifying forthrightly. After considering all the evidence and Administrative Manager Scott's evasiveness, I find that the Company had decided before meeting with the Union in September and October that the Company's unilateral action was irrevoca- ble, and I draw the inference and find that both Watson and Scott were instructed not to agree to return to Aetna. In this connection, I note that when Scott responded (without explanation), "I can't answer that question" (upon being asked if he was told whether or not he could go back to an insurance carrier), he made the claim (neither supported nor denied by other witnesses): "We did offer to discuss carriers but the subject wasn't picked up . We didn't talk about a lot of different carriers or introduce other plans or anything of that nature at that time." (Emphasis supplied.) When later asked if the Company indicated it was willing to go "back to a carrier," Scott answered, "We certainly indicated our willingness to discuss it" (not mentioning his earlier claim that they offered to discuss "carriers"). I seriously doubt that Watson or Scott would be offering "to discuss carriers" under the circumstances, when the Union was insisting on a return to Aetna and the Company was attempting to gain acceptance by the Union (and also by the Sheet Metal Workers) of the 2-month-old corporate- wide self-insured program. But even if there had been an offer "to discuss carriers" or "to discuss it" (going "back to a carrier"), in view of the foregoing findings, the offer would have been made in bad faith , with the knowledge that the parent corporation's decision to become self- insured was irrevocable. Despite the Union's "notice" that it intended to take "every action afforded to us by the law" if the Company did not return to Aetna "within a reasonable time," the Company and the Union discussed the matter at length in the September 23 and October 8 meetings. The Union protested the Company's unilateral action, and its failure to notify, and discuss the matter with, the Umon before August 1. One major concern, on the merits, was whether the Company would "shave claims to save money," notwithstanding the Company's statements that the benefits would be the same. As testified by Administrative Manager Scott, "the feeling of apprehension was that claims that had been administered one way under the Aetna program might be administered in a different manner under the company program"-"that the company administering the program may not honor some of the claims that were previously paid." (The Company proposed a grievance-arbitration procedure, providing for a time limit "no later than the third work shift" for protesting improper payment of claims and providing for the sharing of arbitration costs, but this proposal was rejected by both the Union and the Sheet Metal Workers. The Aetna group policy contained a 3-year time limit.) Another major concern on the Union's part was whether or not the self-insured plan would be adequately funded, to assure complete payment for current disabilities in the event the self-insured program was terminated. (Under the negotiated Aetna major medical plan, claims could amount to as much as $20,000 per employee or dependent.) The Union vigorously protested that the Company was not a "valid" insurance company, and questioned whether the new program would be adequately funded. As Union President Dennis testified, "the corporation was going through another merger with Golconda Mining Company and we were also apprehensive about the corporation itself." (The joint proxy statements, dated June 30, 1970, proposing a merger of Golconda Mining Corporation with the Company's predecessor parent corporation, Astro Controls, Inc., indicated that Astro Controls had negotiated a loan of $3,000,000, mortgaging one of its Chicago plants and paying 10 percent interest from April 1, 1970, until April 1, 1990, "to reduce a $4,100,000 note payable to the bank due January 15, 1971." The statements also indicated that Golconda Mining's principal source of income was dividends from its holdings of Hecla Mining Company common stock, and that Hecla had announced on April 30, 1970, that "it would not pay any further cash dividends during 1970." At the trial, Employee Benefits Administra- tor Helen Earl testified that she had heard rumors that the Company's parent corporation might soon become a part of another corporation.) The Union's questions on funding have never been answered. Although Administrator Earl explained on October 21 how the claims would be processed under the new program, she was unable to answer many questions, including how the plan would be funded. Corporate Industrial Relations Director Watson was present in the courtroom at the trial but he was not called to testify. Administrative Manager Scott testified that he did not know how the self-insured plan was funded, whether the Company's contributions "would be free from any claim in bankruptcy," or whether the Company's plan was covered by the state insurance regulations. No agreement was reached in settling the dispute. At the conclusion of the October 8 meeting, as testified by 612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Administrative Manager Scott, "We [the Company] suggested that it be tried for ninety days," and if the new program "didn't work out after ninety days we would get together to talk about it." (Emphasis supplied.) At the time this suggestion was made, the terms and provisions of the self-insured program had not been put in writing. The meeting concluded, and the Union deferred taking its further "action" (as announced in its September 9 letter) until January 22, when it filed the charge herein, alleging that the Company violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by unilaterally substituting the self-insured plan on August 1. (The Sheet Metal Workers did not file a charge.) In the meantime, on January 7 (91 days after the October 8 meeting), the Company issued its "Company Insurance Certificate" to the employees, describing "certain terms" of the self-insured plan. (Advance copies had been furnished union representatives the latter part of December.) b. Change in life insurance carriers In the September 23 meeting, the Union informed the Company that the Union had no quarrel with the change in life insurance carriers-from Aetna to "another independ- ent insurance carrier." The Union thus acquiesced in this part of the Company's August I unilateral action. Moreover, the Union did not allege as a violation the unilateral change in carriers until it filed the amended charge on February 16, 2 days beyond the Section 10(b) 6- month limitation period (which began on August 14, when the Union was first advised of the change). In agreement with the Company, I find that the amended charge was untimely filed, and that in view of the Union' s earlier acquiescence, the original charge did not place the Company on notice. I therefore find that the complaint's allegations concerning the change in life insurance carriers must be dismissed. C. Adverse Impact on Employee Benefits 1. Changes in coverage In the negotiations for the current 1969-1972 collective- bargaining agreement, as previously found, the Company and the Union bargained for a continuation of the Aetna plan, with various increased benefits which the Company thereupon contracted with Aetna to provide. Under this union-negotiated plan, not only was the payment of the employees' health benefits ensured in writing by the 56- page Aetna Group Policy GC-40,636 (the master contract), but also the interpretation and application of the group policy was placed in the hands of the well-known group insurance carrier, Aetna. The Company's unilateral and irrevocable August 1 cancellation of the Aetna group policy, and the January 7 issuance of its "Company Insurance Certificate," deprived the employees of both the protection of the enforceable master contract, and (as discussed later) Aetna's interpreta- tion and application of it. The January 7 "Certificate" did not contain all the pertinent provisions governing the payment of benefits. It was a modified copy of the most recent Aetna "Group Insurance Certificate" (employee booklet), and was thus only a "summary of the essential features" of the previous Aetna insurance coverage. It failed to set out such provisions in the Aetna master contract as (a) what employees are eligible (permitting coverage of full-time employees working temporarily on a part-time basis), (b) eligibility after 3 months of continuous service, (c) requirement of written request, etc., for coverage of dependents, (d) effective date for dependent's coverage if application is made within 31 days, and if made thereafter, (e) the specific amount of nonoccupational disability weekly benefit ($52, as set out in bargaining agreement), (f) method of computing "average weekly earnings" for determining 70 percent limitation on weekly benefit, (g) exclusions and limitations applied in the event a family member is disabled when the maximum benefit is increased, (h) no benefits if prohibited in jurisdiction of residence, and (i) employer shall not "discriminate unfairly between individuals in similar situations" in administration of the provisions. In many places where the January 7 Certificate is copied from the Aetna employee booklet, the Company has substituted the words, "the Plan," for the words, "the group policy." For example, on the cover page of the Certificate, the sentence from the Aetna employee booklet containing the words, "certain terms of the Group Policy," was changed to read, "The kinds of coverage and certain terms of the Plan applicable thereto are described on this and the following pages of this Certificate." (Emphasis supplied.) In other places in the Certificate, there still remain repeated references to "the group policy." Thus former references in the Aetna employee to "the group policy" now appear in the January 7 Certificate in such phrases as: "subject to the terms of the Plan," "payable under the Plan," "subject to the terms of the group policy," "if included in the Plan," "benefits provided under the Plan," "coverage under the Plan," "subject to the limits provided in the Plan," "Employee's insurance under the group policy," and "coverage under the group policy." These references in the Certificate to "the Plan" and "the group policy" are evidently made (as were the references in the Aetna employee booklet) to the detailed provisions in the now- canceled Aetna Group Policy GC-40,636. Therefore the Certificate issued on January 7 is not a self-contained document setting out all the provisions of the self-insured health program. Furthermore, there appears not to be in existence any such document, which would be enforceable as the Aetna group policy was. Apart from enforceability, there are certain significant changes in the benefits themselves. The Certificate issued by the Company deleted the "Conversion Privilege" (which provided that under specified conditions, an individual "converted policy" could be'obtained by the employee or dependent "without any requirement of evidence of insurability"). The Company unilaterally substituted in the Certificate a "Deferred Benefit Program," providing for possible continued coverage, but for only 31 days. The Company also made a change, which at least placed in doubt the coverage of newborn babies under the $20,000 major medical benefit. The Aetna group policy (and the Aetna employee booklet from which the Certificate was primarily copied) provided such coverage (giving a BASTIAN-BLESSING maximum of $20,000 in protection for children born with a disease, injury, congenital abnormality, or hereditary complication). This was done by a special provision which excluded a newborn child from the general provision that dependents were not covered by the $20,000 major medical benefits if in the hospital, or confined from a disease or injury, at the time the dependents otherwise would have been covered by the insurance. The exclusionary language read, "other than a child with respect to whom the employee becomes insured . . . within thirty-one days after the date of the child's birth." (Emphasis supplied.) The Company substituted in the Certificate the language, "after the date upon which the child attains the age of fourteen days." (In addition, the Company stated in the written Certificate, under Surgical Expense Benefits, Obstetrics, the maximum amounts provided in the Aetna group policy for unrepresented employees-$75 to $300-rather than the union-negotiated maximum amounts-$80 to $360. The Company has acknowledged that this was in error.) 2. Loss of Aetna's administration As previously indicated, the Company was faced with rising medical and hospitalization costs. The benefit charges at its several plants had increased 73 percent in about 2 years, and the Union had negotiated even higher benefits in its 1969-1972 agreement. The expenses charged by Aetna had increased only $1,500 between 1968 and 1969-to the amount of $30,053 for processing the claims at all of the Company's plants. No corporate official of the Company (which made the unilateral decision at the corporate level) testified at the trial why the decision was made to cancel the Aetna coverage. When Administrative Manager Scott was asked if anyone informed him why the Company went to the self- insured program, he testified, "We [he and Corporate Industrial Relations Director Watson] discussed it after we received the announcement, yes. We had hoped to save some administrative costs through this procedure and thought there was a possibility that service might be improved." (Emphasis supplied.) As when giving other testimony, he did not appear to be testifying forthrightly. I do not consider this testimony to be a trustworthy basis for finding the actual company motivation for the change. (Concerning any saving on the $30,053 processing expense, I note that there were an administrator and two employees assigned in the Chicago office to process the claims, and the Company also had the expense of visiting consultant.) As previously stated, Corporate Official Watson was present at the trial, but he was not called to give direct information concerning the Company's motivation. After considering the relatively small amount of the administrative costs, the minor increase in the expenses, the apparent lack of candor in Scott's testimony, the failure of the Company to give the Union the requested written explanation for making the unilateral change, and the great increase in the benefit claims-an increase of over $200,000 in about 2 years-I consider it much more likely, and I find, that the Company was primarily concerned with limiting claims when deciding unilaterally to become self-insured, and that any hope of saving some administrative costs and possibly improving service was merely incidental. 613 The General Counsel correctly argues in his brief that "there is no safeguard in the self-insured plan to protect the employees from Respondent altering or deviating from Aetna's interpretation of matters under the plan." Although much of the language in the January 7 Certificate was copies from the Aetna employee booklet, the Certificate does not bind the Company to follow Aetna 's interpreta- tion. In fact, the Certificate on its face now transfers much discretion from Aetna to the Company . It contains such provisions as: "If evidence satisfactory to the Employer is furnished," "The Employer will determine," "the Employer is furnished with evidence satisfactory to it," and "the Employer will have the right, exercisable alone and in its sole discretion." The Board has held, concerning a change in group health carriers, that "the availability of benefits depends not only on the language of the insurance policy but also upon the manner in which the general language of the policy is construed and administered by the carrier ." Wisconsin Southern Gas Co., 173 NLRB 480, 483 (1968). Although in that case, unlike here, there were insurance representatives who gave supporting testimony , here the actions of Employee Benefits Administrator Earl demonstrated as much. Earl testified that for the nonroutine claims (about 25 percent of all claims filed) she had been using a "large manual" which Aetna had previously given her, to determine if they were payable . Furthermore, Aetna was still processing some claims which arose before August 1 and, as further testified by Earl, "If we don't find the answer there [in the Aetna manual ] we still have occasion to call Aetna and we can still get the information from Aetna." Of course, there is no written assurance that the Company will be able to keep its Aetna manual current, or that after this proceeding has concluded, the Company will continue to follow the manual, or will be willing and able to continue getting free advice from Aetna on the proper interpretation of the superseded group policy . Furthermore it is obvious, from a close reading of the many complex provisions, exclusions, limitations, exceptions, etc., in both the former Aetna group policy and the abridged Certificate, that the application of the benefits is not automatic, without interpretation. The General Counsel further argues: "Without casting aspersions on the Respondent, we would submit that the self-insured Respondent has more reason to apply more stringent interpretation to lint insurance coverage than has the independent insurance carrier." I agree, and find that under the circumstances of this case, the loss of Aetna's interpretation and application of the group health plan tended to have an adverse impact on the benefits negotiated by the Union for the employees in the Carpenters Unit. 3. Question of adequate funding Despite the Union's repeated inquiries about funding of the self-insured program, and the questions raised at the trial, the Company has continued to withhold this information. The three major company witnesses denied knowledge about the funding, leaving unanswered ques- tions about adequate, unencumbered funds to pay pending claims if the program were discontinued. The Company has not given any reason for withholding this information from 614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Union, or for failing to offer evidence concerning this matter at the trial. Under, these circumstances, I draw the inference that such evidence would not be favorable to the Company's cause. I therefore find that the Company's unilateral substitution of a group health program having questionable funding also tended to have an adverse impact on the employees' negotiated benefits. D. Concluding Findings Faced with using group health costs, the Company unilaterally canceled-corporationwide-the Aetna group policy and substituted a self-insured program, under circumstances which demonstrate that the Company was primarily concerned with limiting claims. As found above, this unilateral action-without any prior notice to the Union-had an adverse impact on the benefits of the employees in the Carpenters Unit, for which the Union had negotiated a continuation of the Aetna plan in the negotiations for the current 1969-1972 collective-bargain- ing agreement. I therefore find without merit the Compa- ny's arguments that the change did not bear a "significant or material relationship" to the employees' wages, hours, or other conditions of employment; that the change had no "immediate adverse impact" on the employees, "nor did it result in any `significant detriment' to them"; and that the Union bargained solely on the matter of benefit levels, not on the identity of the insurance carrier. The Company also contends in its brief that even if the change "constituted a prima facie violation of Section 8(a)(5), the violation was cured by the overall conduct of ,the Respondent and, in particular, by its subsequent bargaining with the Union." To the contrary, as found above, the Company had already decided before meeting with the Union that the unilateral change was irrevocable. I therefore find without merit the Company's further argument that "There is no indication in the record that the Respondent engaged in these discussions with the fixed determination not to revert to Aetna under any circum- stances." Accordingly I find that the Company failed to bargain in good faith by unilaterally substituting, and continuing, the self-insured health program for the Aetna health insurance, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Union is the exclusive collective -bargaining representative of the Company's employees in the Carpen- ters Unit, consisting of "All carpenter journeymen, carpenter journeymen trainees, insulators, finishers, paint- ers, maintenance men, material handling clerks, custom material handling group leaders , millroom billing clerks, packers, craters, lift truck drivers, truck drivers, receiving clerks, firemen, watchmen, and general laborers employed at the Respondent's Grand Haven, Michigan plant, including all limited service employees , but excluding all employees covered by collective bargaining agreements with other labor organizations , line managers, assistant line 4 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in managers, office clerical employees, cafeteria employees, timekeepers, confidential employees, guards and supervi- sors as defined in the Act and all other employees." 2. By unilaterally, and without any notice to the Union, substituting and continuing the self-insured program for the Aetna group health plan, the Company has on and after August 1, 1970, engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 3. The Union's amended charge, alleging a further violation in the Company's concurrent change in life insurance carriers on August 1, 1970, was untimely filed on February 16, 1971. REMEDY In order to effectuate the policies of the Act, I find it necessary that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found and from like or related invasions of the employees' Section 7 rights, and to take certain affirmative action. The Respondent, as found, had bargained with the Union for a continuation of the Aetna group health plan in the negotiations for the current collective-bargaining agree- ment covering employees in the Carpenters Unit at the Grand Haven plant. However, in disregard of this fact, the Respondent unilaterally, and without any notice to the Union, canceled its entire group insurance policy with Aetna and became self-insured in order to reduce the amount of benefits paid employees under the health plan. As found, this adversely affected the benefits negotiated by the Union. Finding the Company to have acted in bad faith both in taking this unilateral action and in deciding that the action would be irrevocable before meeting with the Union, I find it necessary and appropriate that the Respondent be ordered to restore, upon the Union's written request, the Aetna group health coverage for the employees in the Carpenters Unit. The'Respondent argues in its brief that such a remedy could not be lawfully required because it "would undoubtedly entail different premium rates, experience factors, actuarial data, etc., and result in a plan different from that in effect prior to August 1, 1970." However, there is no evidence suggesting that the former health plan could not be negotiated with Aetna for the employees in the Carpenters Unit alone. In weighing the alternatives, between requiring an effectual remedy and permitting the Respondent to flout the Act with actual impunity, I find it necessary that the Respondent be ordered to restore this coverage even if the premium would be higher for this size group. Of course the Respondent would not be precluded from including other employees in the insurance group if it chose to do so in order to reduce the preemployee premium cost. Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following: 4 Sec 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. BASTIAN-BLESSING ORDER Respondent, Bastian-Blessing, Division of Golconda Corporation, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with Local 893, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the Carpenters Unit at the Grand Haven, Michigan plant. (b) Making unilateral changes in insurance carriers for, or group health benefits of, employees in the above- mentioned appropriate bargaining unit during the term of the current collective-bargaining agreement without first reaching agreement with the Union concerning the changes. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon written request from the Union, and in the manner set forth in the section of the Trial Examiner's Decision entitled "Remedy," rescind the self-insured group health coverage for employees in the Carpenters Unit at the Grand Haven, Michigan plant and immediately reestablish for these employees, without any lapse in coverage, the Aetna Life Insurance Company group health insurance which was terminated on August 1, 1970. (b) Post at its plant in Grand Haven, Michigan, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 5 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained-for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicu- ous places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 615 IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the complaint be dismissed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found. 5 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the National 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." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board having found, after trial, that we violated Federal Law by canceling on August 1', 1970, without notice, the Aetna Life Insurance Company group health coverage for employees in the Carpenters Unit: WE WILL restore, upon written request by Carpenters Local 893; the Aetna group health insurance for the Carpenters Unit. WE WILL NOT make changes in insurance carriers, or in group health benefits, without bargaining at a proper time. BASTIAN-BLESSING, DIVISION OF GOLCONDA CORPORATION (Employer) Dated By (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, 500 Book Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan 48226, Telephone 313-226-3200.