Electronic Products International Corp.

350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Electronic Products International Corporation and Warehouse and Mail Order Employees Union, Local 743, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Ameri- ca. Case 13-CA- 12023 January 11, 1974 ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On May 31, 1973, Administrative Law Judge Maurice S. Bush issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, Charging Party filed excep- tions 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 attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge 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 Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, Electronic Products International Corporation, North Chicago, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommend- ed Order. Member Fanning disavows any reliance on the Administrative Law Judge's finding that since the decision to move the production operation was made for legitimate business or economic reasons the Union is not entitled to an order requiring Respondent to bargain as to the decision to close See his dissenting opinion in General Motors Corporation, GMC Truck & Coach D,vision, 191 NLRB 951. However, since the complaint does not allege that Respondent unlawfully refused to bargain as to the decision to close and since that issue was not litigated at the hearing , Mr Fanning agrees with his colleagues that it would be inappropriate to include in the remedial order a requirement that Respondent bargain as to the decision to close DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MAURICE S. BUSH, Administrative Law Judge: The Respondent being under a bargaining order by virtue of an order in a prior related proceeding , the sole issue in the present matter is whether the Respondent is in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by its failure and refusal to bargain with the Union over the effects on its employees of the closing of its principal plant at Chicago, Illinois, and the transfer of its manufac- turing operations to its coexixting plant in North Chicago, Lake County, Illinois, some 35 miles from the city of Chicago. The complaint herein was issued on March 30, 1973, pursuant to a charge filed on January 2, 1973, and an amended charge filed on January 29, 1973, copies of which were duly served on the Respondent The case was tried on April 26 and 27, 1973, at Chicago, Illinois. By agreement of the parties, the case was submitted on oral argument presented at the conclusion of the taking of testimony. However, after the trial, counsel for the Union on May 11, 1973, filed a posttrial memorandum together with a motion for leave that it be received. The motion is granted. The oral argument in behalf of the Respondent by Mr. Edward L. Cooper, Jr., appearing pro se as president of the Respondent, and the oral arguments of counsel for General Counsel and the Charging Party, together with the latter's posttrial memo- randum, have been carefully reviewed and considered. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT AND JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS The Respondent, an Illinois corporation, has at all times material herein up until January 29, 1973, maintained its principal place of business at 2300 South King Drive, Chicago, in Cook County, Illinois, where it engaged in the manufacture of electronic parts. Similarly at all times material herein , Respondent has also maintained a coexisting electronic parts plant at North Chicago, in Lake County, Illinois. On January 29, 1973, Respondent closed its principal place of business and plant at Chicago and moved all of its manufacturing operations to its North Chicago plant where it continues to be engaged in the manufacture of electronic parts. Respondent, during its fiscal year ending January 31, 1972, a representative period, in the course and conduct of its business operations, manufactured, sold, and shipped products to and performed services for Automatic Electric Company, Western Electric Company, and Universities Research Associations, Inc., valued in excess of $50,000. Automatic Electric Company, Western Electric Company, and Universities Research Associations, Inc., each, annual- ly, in the course and conduct of their operations, purchases and ships goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from directly outside of the State of Illinois to their business locations in Illinois, and each of these enterprises is directly in interstate commerce. 208 NLRB No. 60 ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS INTL CORP 351 Respondent, during the same representative fiscal year, in the course and conduct of its business operations, manufactured, sold and shipped products to and per- formed services for Ford Motor Company, Western Electric Company, and General Motors Corporation, jointly valued in excess of $50,000. Ford Motor Company, Western Electric Company, and General Motors Corpora- tion each, annually, in the course and conduct of their operations, purchases and ships goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from directly outside the State of Illinois to their business locations in Illinois, and each of these enterprises is directly in interstate commerce.' Respondent has been at all times herein material and is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.2 II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION Warehouse and Mail Order Employees Union, Local 743, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, the Charging Party herein, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.3 III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background and Chronology of Events Edward L. Cooper, Jr., is the founder, president, and sole stockholder of the Respondent, a manufacturer of elec- tronic parts. From the start of his business at his home at Prairie, Illinois, in 1967, he eventually moved his opera- tions to a plant in Wheeling, Illinois, and thereafter in January of 1971, from Wheeling to a plant in Chicago, Illinois, which became his wholly owned Respondent's principal place of business and manufacturing plant. In April 1972, Cooper caused the Respondent to open a second electronic parts manufacturing plant at North Chicago, Illinois, a city some 35 miles north of the City of Chicago with a population of about 47,000. At the trial Cooper, a black man, frequently referred to the Respon- dent as a "minority company" because, as he stated, it is "a black-owned . . . and operated" company. The record herein and a Board decision in a prior unfair labor case shows that the Respondent has a history of being a marginal business enterprise struggling to keep alive. 1 The above paragraph reflects an amendment of par 11(e) of the complaint, the allegations of which the Respondent admitted orally at the trial 2 As orally admitted by Respondent at the teal 3 As orally admitted by Respondent at the trial 4 By letter dated April 12, 1973, the Respondent asked the Board for a 30-day extension of time in which to file exceptions to Judge Maher's Decision (G.C Exh. 3) The Board by its Associate Executive Secretary denied the request under a letter dated April 18, 1973, on the ground that the request was untimely filed and Respondent was informed that the Board would proceed "in due course to issue an order adopting the Administrative Law Judge's Decision and Recommended Order " (G C Exh 4) Under letter dated April 23, 1973 (2 days before trial herein), the Respondent renewed its request to the Board for an extension of time in which to file exceptions to Judge Maher's Decision (Resp Exh I ) The Board by letter dated May 2, 1973, denied the renewed request for the extension on the ground that, "The reasons stated in your current letter with respect to an opportunity to obtain counsel do not constitute such extraordinary circumstances as to warrant waiving the Board' s rules in this In June of 1972, the Union here involved sought to organize the employees in Respondent's Chicago plant in an appropriate unit described below. In the latter part of June 1972, the Union filed unfair labor charges against Respondent because of its conduct in connection with the Union's efforts to organize Respondent's Chicago plant. Based on such charges, a complaint was issued against the Respondent in Case 13-CA-11616 in which Respondent was charged with violations of Section 8(a)(l), (3), and (5) of the Act. By its answer the Respondent denied the commission of any unfair labor practices. After a full hearing in the matter in December 1972, Administrative Law Judge Maher issued his decision therein on March 23, 1973. (G.C. Exh. 5.) In his Decision, Administrative Law Judge Maher "found that Respondent has interfered with, restrained and coerced its employees by threatening to move its plant, and by offering and granting benefits in its efforts to thwart the Union's organizational campaign, that it discriminatorily laid off two of its employees and that it has refused to bargain with the employees' duly designated bargaining agent" and recommended "that Respondent cease and desist from this conduct ...." In addition, among other orders, he recommended, as here pertinent, an order that the Respondent "bargain collectively with the Union as the representative of its employees" in the involved appropri- ate unit which by stipulation in both the case before Administrative Law Judge Maher and in the instant proceeding is established to consist of "All full time and regular part-time production, maintenance and warehouse employees employed by Respondent at its Chicago, Illinois, location, exclusive of office clerical employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined by the Act." (Emphasis supplied.) The complaint in the instant case was issued, as heretofore noted, on March 30, 1973, or 7 days after the issuance of the Decision in Case 13-CA-1 1616. On May 4, 1973, the Board, in the absence of the filing of exceptions to Administrative Law Judge Maher's Decision or a timely request for an extension of time in which to file such exceptions,4 adopted the findings and conclusions as contained in his Decision, and ordered the Respondent "to take the action set forth" in the recommended Order. As here pertinent, the key order in the Board-adopted Decision is the bargaining order requiring the Respondent situation " (G C Exh 9) In this connection , it may be noted that as the trial judge herein, I adjourned the hearing in which Mr Cooper appeared as president of the Respondent pro se shortly after it had started and before General Counsel could proceed with his proof of the alleged unfair labor practices, until the next day to give Mr. Cooper the further opportunity to engage counsel to represent Respondent I urged Cooper to retain the counsel who had represented him and the Company in the prior case before Administrative Law Judge Maher because of his familiarity with the background for the instant case Cooper indicated that he expected that his former attorney would decline to represent him because he had not paid him his fee in the earlier case He further stated. "I am going to place an advertisement in New York, Los Angeles , San Francisco , Washington and other newspapers asking for legal counsel against the N L.R B and the Teamsters-as sort of a legal aid-and if that happens I will see if there's anybody interested in giving us a hand " The next day Cooper appeared pro se again with the announcement that his attorney "was unprepared to represent me" without advance payment of several hundred dollars on his unpaid fee which Cooper claimed inability to pay. 352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to, "Upon request bargain with the above-named labor organization [i.e., the Charging Party in the case before Administrative Law Judge Maher as well as in the present proceeding] in the aforementioned appropriate unit, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment, and if an agreement is reached reduce such agreement to writing." From the Board's adopted findings, conclusions and orders of the Decision in the former proceeding, it is found that the Respondent was under a continuing obligation to bargain with the same Union here involved with respect to the above-described unit employees at its Chicago plant at all times from and after June 26, 1972, when the Union requested recognition upon attaining possession of valid union representation cards from 17 of the then 24 employees, or a majority thereof, in Respondent's Chicago plant. On January 26, 1973, when the number of the unit employees on the payroll in the Chicago plant had dwindled to seven employees due to business attrition, the Respondent, solely for economic reasons,5 closed and gave up its Chicago plant and moved its machinery and operations to its North Chicago plant, some 35 miles north of the city of Chicago. All seven of these remaining unit employees at the Chicago plant at the time of its closing were part of the original majority of 17 out of the 24 employees in the unit who had signed union authorization cards and lodged them with the Union prior to the Union's demand for recognition and bargaining on June 26, 1972, as the majority representative of Respondent's employees. Thus, at the time of the closing of the Chicago plant, the Union had representation authorization cards from all or 100 percent of the seven remaining unit employees then on the payroll of the Chicago plant. B. Refusal to Bargain The Respondent gave the Union no notice of its decision to terminate its Chicago plant and to move its operations to its North Chicago plant. Rumor of the impending move having reached the Union, counsel for the Union (who also appeared for the Union in the present as well as the preceding unfair labor case) sent the following telegraphic demands to the Respondent on January 23, 1973• On behalf Teamsters Local 743, demand you offer jobs to all present employees at relocated plant and pay transportation costs. Demand you bargain with Team- sters Local 743 regarding all other terms and conditions of employment of said employees. On January 24, the next day, Respondent replied to the Union's demands by telegram as follows: Regarding your demand we offer jobs to all employees at relocated plant and pay transportation costs we will S In this connection counsel for General Counsel made the following statement at the trial "I would like Mr Cooper, president of Respondent to know on the record that General Counsel does not allege that Mr. Cooper moved for any reason other than economic reasons " The undisputed record shows that Respondent moved its manufacturing activities and offices from comply. Regarding demand for bargaining we are not compelled to do so at this time. On January 26, a Friday, Respondent gave written notice to each of the seven remaining unit employees in its Chicago plant that it was closing that plant and also in the same notice told them that they were "expected to report to work Monday 1-29-73" at the Company's North Chicago plant. The text of notice as pertinent reads as follows: January 26, 1973 As a result of lease difficulties, a rental increase, heating problems, and lack of expansion, EPIC is moving its manufacturing operations to its North Chicago Plant. You are expected to report to work Monday 1-29-73 ... [at the North Chicago plant] s s s • • EPIC [Electronic Products International Corporation] will pay for your round trip train fare. For those who drive, EPIC will pay for the equivalent of the round trip train fare. For the first week, until you work out your new time schedule, we will excuse lateness . However, starting times will be strictly enforced the following week. (The hours remain the same.) If you decide to reside in the area, we will discuss the sharing of moving expenses and time off (with pay) to look for a new home. To maintain production , please advise us by 9 a.m. Monday, 1-29-73 if you plan to continue your employment with EPIC. EPIC Management The above notice constitutes the offer of jobs demanded by the Union "to all present employees at relocated plant" and for the payment of the additional transportation costs to and from the North Chicago plant. Only two of the remaining Chicago plant employees accepted transfers to the North Chicago plant. With these transferees, the North Chicago plant as of January 29 had a total of five production and maintenance employees. Within 30 days the two transferees dropped out of Respondent's employment because it was "too hard to get" to North Chicago from the city of Chicago. As of the time of trial herein in the latter part of April 1973, the Respondent had only three production and maintenance employees in its North Chicago plant. Although the Respondent fully complied with the Union's first listed demand of its telegram that it offer jobs to all of its Chicago plant employees at its "relocated plant and pay transportation costs," the record shows, and the Respondent concedes, that it did not comply with the the city of Chicago to the city of North Chicago on January 29, 1973, because of a substantial increase of monthly rental at its Chicago premises and also because there was not room for physical expansion of the Chicago facilities when and if needed in the future , among other claimed economic reasons. ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS INTL. CORP Union's second listed demand that it bargain with the Union "regarding all other terms and conditions of employment of said employees." Counsel for General Counsel in his oral argument at the close of the trial stated that under the Union's demand that the Respondent bargain about "all other terms and conditions of employ- ment," some of the things the Union "might have been seeking would have been severance pay, settlement of accrued vacations, preferential hiring in case the employer resumed operations in the City of Chicago." The undisput- ed testimony of Respondent's President Cooper shows that Respondent lost over $90,000 in the 10-month period between January and October 1972 and that the Company is still operating at a loss. I find that on January 23, 1973, when the Union made demand upon the Respondent that the Company bargain with the Union on "all other terms and conditions of employment" of its Chicago plant employees, the Respondent was in a serious financial condition and probably in no position to make any outlays to its Chicago employees by the way of severance pay or accrued vacation and sick leave. But the Union was only asking that the Respondent meet with it and discuss such matters and the record is undisputed that the Respondent refused to do that Discussions and Conclusions The sole issue herein under the pleadings is whether the Respondent is in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act because of its failure and refusal to bargain with the Union "over the effects upon unit employees of Respon- dent's elimination of its manufacturing operations at its Chicago plant and transfer of said manufacturing opera- tions to its North Chicago plant." In the aforementioned prior proceeding before the Board in Case 13-CA-11616, it was established that since June 26, 1972, the Union herein has been the exclusive representative of all of its unit production and mainte- nance employees at its Chicago plant. Based upon that finding the Respondent was ordered upon request of the Union to bargain with it "with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours and terms of employment" of such employ- ees. It is thus obvious that some 6 months later when the Respondent decided to close its Chicago plant and to move its manufacturing operations to its North Chicago plant that the Company was still under a continuing obligation to bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of its Chicago employees on all matters affecting the terms and conditions of their employment including the effects of the elimination of the Chicago plant and the transfer of its operations to North Chicago. Southern Illinois Sand Co., Inc., 137 NLRB 1490. The Respondent failed to meet this continuing obligation to bargain with the Union with respect to its Chicago plant employees as demanded by the Union in its telegram of January 23, 1973, by its admitted failure and refusal to bargain with the Union over the effect of the move on such possible matters for discussion and bargaining as severance pay, accrued vacation pay, accrued sick leave, and 6 N L R B v Royal Plating and Polishing Co, Inc, 350 F 2d 191 (C A 3. 1965), Morrison Cafeterias Consolidated, Inc v N L R B, 431 F 2d 254 353 preferential rehiring in the event the Company resumed operation in Chicago, but not on the matter of offering to its Chicago plant employees job transfers to its North Chicago plant because Respondent obviated any need for any bargaining on that score by its immediate agreement to offer jobs to all of its Chicago plant employees at its North Chicago plant together with the additional daily transportation costs involved in commuting between Chicago and North Chicago. Under well established authority I find and conclude that the Respondent is in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by its admitted refusal and failure to discuss and bargain with the Union about such other effects of its decision to close its Chicago plant on the affected employees, as severance pay, accrued vacation pay, accrued sick leave, and preferential hiring in the event the Respondent again opened a plant in Chicago .6 Respondent's only defense to its failure and refusal to bargain with the Union over the effects of the closing of its Chicago plants on the employees employed therein appears to be that it was in a "loss position." This is obviously not a defense to the Union's demand that Respondent merely meet with the Union's representatives and discuss such matters. Under the Act the Respondent was under an obligation to at least meet with the Union and discuss and bargain over such matters and this it failed to do in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the record as a whole, I make the following. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce, and the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 2. From and after June 26, 1972, the Union has been and is the exclusive representative for collective-bargaining purposes of an appropriate unit described as follows: All full-time and regular part-time production, mainte- nance and warehouse employees employed by Respon- dent at its Chicago, Illinois, location, exclusive of office clerical employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined by the Act. 3. From and after June 26, 1972, the Respondent has been under a Board order to bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the above- described unit. 4. That on January 23, 1973, the Union requested that Respondent bargain with it concerning the effect on employees in the above-described unit over Respondent's decision to transfer its Chicago plant manufacturing operations to its North Chicago plant. 5. That since January 24, 1973, Respondent has refused to comply with the Union request for bargaining as described above and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor (C A 8. 1970): N L.R B v Drapery Manufacturing Company, Inc, and American White Goods Company, 425 F 2d 1026 (C A 8. 1970). 354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended: REMEDY Under the complaint and at the hearing, counsel for General Counsel seeks only an order herein "directing Respondent to recognize and bargain in good faith with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees" in the described unit "upon the effects on the employees of the elimination and transfer of manufactur- ing operations" of its Chicago plant to its North Chicago plant. Having found that the Respondent failed and refused to so recognize and bargain with the Union over the effects of its move on the affected employees in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, I will recommend that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. The Union at the trial and in its brief seeks a far broader order than that requested by General Counsel as set forth above in that in addition thereto it seeks (1) an order requiring the Respondent to bargain with the Union "concerning its decision to terminate operations at its Chicago, Illinois, location" and (2) an order requiring the Respondent to bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of all the production and maintenance employees "at the North Chicago, Illinois, location, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment ...." (Emphasis supplied.) Inasmuch as the record shows and the General Counsel concedes that Respondent's decision to close its Chicago plant and move its manufacturing operations to its North Chicago plant was made solely for legitimate business or economic reasons, I find that the Union is not entitled to an order requiring the Company to bargain with the Union over its decision to make such move. In a similar situation, the court of appeals held "that an employer faced with the economic necessity of either moving or consolidating the operations of a failing business had no duty to bargain with the Union respecting its decision to shut down." N. L. R. B. v. Royal Plating & Polishing Co., supra. The court of appeals in turn based its decisions on the holdings of the Supreme Court in Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. N.L.R.B., 379 U.S. 203, 217, 223 (1964), Textile Workers Union v. Darlington Mfg. Co., 380 U.S. 263, 267 at fn. 5 (1965). These Supreme Court holdings likewise also require the findings made in this paragraph. The Union is similarly not entitled to an order, as requested, requiring the Respondent to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of a unit of "full time and regular part-time production, maintenance and warehouse employees employed by the Respondent at its North Chicago, location" (emphasis supplied) as distinguished from a unit of such employees at the Chicago, Illinois, location, because the original unit as r In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 10246 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec alleged in the complaint in the prior unfair • labor proceeding and in the instant case describes the unit as one composed only of such employees as were employed at the Chicago, Illinois, plant This likewise appears from the charges filed by the Union under the signatures of Mr. Rubin, counsel for the Union in both the prior unfair labor case and the present case wherein the address of the Respondent is shown only as the factory in the city of Chicago and wherein the number of employees shown to be in the Chicago plant was 25 which is several times the number of employees the North Chicago plant had at any time. Thus it is clear that the Union is improperly seeking to enlarge the original unit Chicago plant employees to include the employees with similar jobs in the North Chicago plant. There is no evidence that the Union ever attempted to organize the North Chicago plant. In the want of any evidence showing that the Union ever represented a majority of the employees in the North Chicago plant, I find and determine that the North Chicago plant constitutes a separate unit from that in the former Chicago plant. In making the above findings, I concur in the position of General Counsel as stated in the oral arguments before me at the conclusion of the trial where, in response to my question as to why General Counsel was not seeking the broader order requested by the Union, counsel for the General Counsel responded as follows: "The General Counsel determined or came to the conclusions . . . that the employees at North Chicago constituted a separate unit from that in Chicago; that Local 743 of the Teamsters represented at most the employees in the Chicago, Illinois unit, not the employees in the North Chicago unit; that the employees who transferred to the North Chicago unit did not thereupon constitute a majority of the employees in the North Chicago unit, to cause us to seek a new bargaining order concerning the North Chicago unit . . . It is the determination of the General Counsel that the Union never represented the majority of production and mainte- nance employees employed by this employer located at its facility in North Chicago." Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in this proceeding, I make the following recommended: r ORDER Respondent, Electronic Products International Corpora- tion , its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively with Warehouse and Mail Order Employees Union , Local 743, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , as the exclusive representative of all employees in the following appropriate unit: 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 ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS INTL. CORP All full time and regular part-time production, mainte- nance and warehouse employees employed by Respon- dent at its Chicago, Illinois, location, exclusive of office clerical employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined by the Act. concerning the effects of the discontinuance of the Chicago, Illinois, plant operation on such employees. 2. Take the `ollowing affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the Union concerning the effects of the discontinuance of its Chicago manufacturing operation on the employees in the above- described unit. (b) Mail a copy of the attached notice marked "Appen- dix" 8 to each employee in the appropriate unit who was employed by Respondent at its Chicago operation immedi- ately prior to the discontinuance of that operation on January 29, 1973. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 13, shall be signed by Respondent's duly authorized representative. Thereafter, additional copies of the notice shall be posted by Respondent and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places at its present office and plant at North Chicago, Illinois, 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. s In the event that 'he Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a 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 355 NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government After a trial in which both sides had the opportunity to present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the law and has ordered us to mail this notice and to post this notice at our present location. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Warehouse and Mail Order Employees Union, Local 743, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, about the effects of our decision to close down our Chicago, Illinois, plant on the employees who were affected by such termination and reduce to writing any agreement reached as a result of such bargaining. ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL 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 concern- ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, Everett McKinley Dirksen Bldg., Rm. 881, 219 S. Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone 312-353-7572.