Verona Dyestuff Division

VERONA DYESTUFF DIVISION Verona Dyestuff Division Mobay Chemical Corpora- tion and United Steelworkers of America, AFL- CIO. Cases I I-CA-6799 and 11-CA-6816 October 28, 1977 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND MURPHY Upon a charge filed on November I and 15, 1976, by United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, and duly served on Verona Dyestuff Division Mobay Chemical Corporation, herein called Respondent, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region I 11, issued an order consolidating cases, complaint, and notice of hearing on December 29, 1976, alleging that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Copies of the charges, and the order consolidating cases, complaint, and notice of hearing before an Administrative Law Judge were duly served on the parties to this proceeding. With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges in substance that on October 8, 1976, following a Board election in Case II-RC- 4094, the Union was duly certified as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of Respondent's employees in the unit found appropriate; I and that, commencing on or about October 20, 1976, and at all times thereafter, Respondent has refused to recog- nize and bargain with the Union as the duly designated collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. The complaint further alleges that commencing on or about Novem- ber 11, 1976, and at all times thereafter, Respondent has refused, and continues to refuse, to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargain- ing representative of the unit employees. Specifically, Respondent is alleged to have violated Section 8(a)(5) by: (1) Refusing the Union's request to furnish the names, dates of hire, job classifications, rates of pay, and existing benefits of all employees in the unit; (2) refusing and failing, and continuing to refuse and fail, to grant to unit employees a general wage increase averaging 10 percent which Respon- dent granted to production and other employees on or about November 15, 1976; and (3) refusing and ' Official notice is taken of the record in the representation proceeding. Case I I-RC-4094, as the term "record" is defined in Secs. 102.68 and 102 .69(g) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8. as amended. See LTV Electroystemns, Inc. 166 NL.RB 938 (1967), enfd. 388 F.2d 683 (C.A. 4. 233 NLRB No. 22 failing, and continuing to refuse and fail, to grant to unit employees an additional holiday, effective in 1977, which Respondent granted to production and other employees. Subsequently, Respondent filed its answer admitting in part, and denying in part, the allegations in the complaint. On March 7, 1977, counsel for the General Counsel filed directly with the Board a motion to strike portions of Respondent's answer to the complaint, a Motion for Summary Judgment and brief in support thereof, with exhibits attached. On March 10, 1977, counsel for the General Counsel filed an addendum to his motions, with an exhibit attached. The General Counsel submits that Respondent has defended its refusal to recognize and bargain with the Union as well as its refusal to provide presumptively relevant information, solely on the grounds that the certified unit is inappropriate and that, therefore, Respondent is merely attempting to relitigate issues determined adversely to it in the underlying representation case. He further submits that Respondent's failure to grant to unit employees the general wage increase and additional holiday granted to other employees was based on the fact that unit employees had chosen the Union to represent them. Subsequently, on March 17, 1977, the Board transferred this case to itself and issued a Notice To Show Cause why the General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgment should not be granted. Respondent thereafter filed a response to the Notice To Show Cause. 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. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board makes the following: Ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment Respondent, in both its answer to the complaint and its response to the Notice To Show Cause, admits the factual allegations that it has refused and failed to recognize and bargain, upon request, with the Union. It asserts, however, that the maintenance unit found appropriate in the underlying representa- tion case is in fact inappropriate, and that therefore the certification issued in that case is invalid. The record in the underlying representation pro- ceeding shows that on November 26, 1975, after a hearing in which Respondent participated, the Regional Director for Region 11 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in which he found appropriate the Petitioner's requested unit of mainte- 1968); Golden Age Beverage Co., 167 NLRB 151 (1967), enfd. 415 F.2d 26 (C.A. 5, 1969); Intertype Co. v. Penello, 269 F.Supp. 573 (D.C.Va., 1967); Follerr Corp., 164 NLRB 378 (1967). enfd. 397 F.2d 91 (C.A. 7. 1968); Sec. 9(d) of the NLRA. as amended. 109 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD nance department employees at Respondent's Bushy Park plant, Charleston, South Carolina. Subsequent- ly, Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration with the Regional Director contending, inter alia, that he made erroneous factual findings regarding both the supervision of maintenance employees and the extent of their interchange and functional integration with production employees. The Regional Director issued an Order on Petition for Reconsider- ation denying the motion for reconsideration. There- after, Respondent filed a timely request for review of the Regional Director's decision alleging that in reaching his determination he made erroneous findings of fact and departed from precedent, and that in any event there were compelling reasons for reconsideration of Board policy. On February 11, 1976, the Board granted the request for review and stayed the election pending Decision on Review. On September 3, 1976, the Board issued its Decision on Review 2 in which it affirmed the Regional Director's decision. It thus appears clear that Respondent is attempting to raise issues herein which have been raised and resolved in the prior representation case. It is well settled that in the absence of newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence or special circumstances a respondent in a proceeding alleging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) is not entitled to relitigate issues which were or could have been litigated in a prior representation proceeding.3 All issues raised by the Respondent in this proceeding concerning the appropriateness of the certified unit of maintenance employees were or could have been litigated in the prior representation proceeding, and Respondent does not offer to adduce at a hearing any newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, nor does it allege that any special circumstances exist herein which would require the Board to reexamine the decision made in the representation proceeding. We therefore find that Respondent has not raised any issue regarding the appropriateness of the certified unit 2 225 NLRB 1159 (1976). (Members Murphy and Jenkins; Member Walther dissenting.) 3 See Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. N.L.R.B., 313 U.S. 146, 162 (1941); Rules and Regulations of the Board, Secs. 102.67(f) and 102.69(c). 4 It is uncontroverted that by letter dated October 20, 1976, the Union requested Respondent to furnish it with the following information with respect to the unit of maintenance employees: dates of hire and seniority by job classification within the department; a list of all employees in the certified unit by department; a list of job classifications for all employees in the bargaining unit showing the hourly rate of pay for each employee, plus the employee's position in the progressive rate structure; a description of fringe benefits currently in effect in the plant; and copies of any employee manuals describing senionty arrangements, leaves of absence, safety and health rules, and other similar information. The Union again requested such information from Respondent by letter dated November 12, 1976. Respondent, by its attorney, has at all times declined to furnish the requested information. 5 Western Electric, Inc., 225 NLRB 1374 (1976); Hotel Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Royal Inn of South Bend, 224 NLRB 810 (1976); Warehouse Foods, a which is properly litigable in this unfair labor practice proceeding. Accordingly, we find that Respondent has at all times material herein refused to recognize and bargain with the Union, upon request, and that its refusal to do so is violative of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. In its answer and response to the Notice To Show Cause, Respondent admits that it has refused, upon request, to furnish to the Union wage and employ- ment information pertaining to bargaining unit employees,4 but again defends its refusal on the grounds that the certified maintenance unit is inappropriate. For the above-stated reasons, we find such a defense without merit. Furthermore, it is well established that such information is presumptively relevant for purposes of collective bargaining, and must be provided upon request to the employees' bargaining representative.5 In addition, it is also well settled that a union is not required to show the precise relevance of such information unless the employer has submitted evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption of relevance.6 Respondent has not attempted to rebut the relevance of the information sought by the Union. Accordingly, we find that no material issues of fact exist with regard to Respon- dent's refusal to furnish the wage and employment information sought by the Union through its letter of October 20, 1976, and that its refusal to do so violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. In its answer to the complaint and its response to the Notice To Show Cause, Respondent admits that it did not grant to unit employees the general wage increase and additional holiday which it granted to all production and other employees at its Bushy Park plant. It contends, however, that its withholding of the wage increase and holiday was not unlawful because such action is in accordance with its "longstanding policy of not granting any benefits to represented employees unless negotiated with their representatives." 7 Division of M. E. Carter and Company, Inc., 223 NLRB 506 (1976); Dynamic Machine Co., 221 NLRB 1140 (1975); Building Construction Employers Association of Lincoln, Nebraska and M. W. Anderson Construction Co., 185 NLRB 34 (1970); Cowles Communications, Inc., 172 NLRB 1909 (1968); Curtiss-Wright Corporation, Wright Aeronautical Division, 145 NLRB 152 (1963), enfd. 347 F.2d 61 (C.A. 3, 1965). 6 Curtiss-Wright Corporation, Wright Aeronautical Division, 347 F.2d at 69. 7 Respondent also denies the allegations of the complaint that on or about October 22, 1976, it announced by posted notice that all production and other employees, except the unit employees, would be granted the wage increase and an additional holiday. Respondent contends that the wage increase was not announced "by posted notice" and that the only posted announcement of the additional holiday occurred on January 3. 1977. Counsel for the General Counsel, however, has submitted a copy of a letter, the validity of which is not disputed by Respondent, sent to a Board agent by Respondent's attorney in which the latter admitted that the wage increase and the additional holiday were announced by Respondent on I10 VERONA DYESTUFF DIVISION In support of its Motion for Summary Judgment,8 counsel for the General Counsel submitted a copy of the letter referred to in footnote 7. In that letter Respondent's attorney stated, inter alia, that Respon- dent has "endeavored to grant a wage or benefit increase, or both, regularly .... " and that "[t]he exclusion [of the employees in the maintenance unit] was because wages are a bargainable issue and as the maintenance employees had representation the mat- ter is one for negotiation with such representative." By letter dated December 7, 1976, the Union requested that Respondent grant the wage increase and an additional holiday to unit employees. In the letter, the Union referred to the wage increase as "the annual wage increase," a reference which Respon- dent does not dispute.9 Counsel for the General Counsel has also submitted a copy of Respondent's January 3, 1977, announcement of an additional holiday. The announcement expressly limited the new benefit to "each employee not in a collective bargaining unit ... " It is thus clear that both the wage increase and the additional holiday granted to nonunit employees at the Bushy Park plant would have been granted to the unit employees as well but for the fact that they had selected the Union as their bargaining representative. It is well established that the withholding of wage increases and/or benefits from employees who are awaiting the holding of a Board election, or who have chosen a union as their collective-bargaining representative, violates Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act if such employees otherwise would have been granted the wage increases and/or benefits in the normal course of the employer's business.10 Further- more, Respondent's claim that its withholding of the wage increase and the additional holiday from unit employees is justified by virtue of its established policy of negotiating such matters with the employ- ees' collective-bargaining representative is unavail- ing, particularly in the circumstances here in which Respondent has admittedly refused to recognize and bargain with the Union." Accordingly, we find that Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(3) and (I) of the Act by refusing and failing to grant to unit October 22, 1976. We therefore find that Respondent's denials of these allegations of the complaint do not raise any matenal issues warranting a hearing. I We hereby deny the General Counsel's motion to strike portions of Respondent's answer to the complaint. g Respondent also denies the allegation of the complaint that the Union requested it to grant the wage increase and additional holiday to the employees. The Union's letter to Respondent, dated December 7, 1976, reads, in pertinent part: This is to advise you that we are in full agreement of Verona granting the Maintenance Department the annual wage increase and additional holiday, effective November 15, 1976, the same date the wage increase and holiday was granted the Production workers at the Charleston, South Carolina plant. employees the general wage increase and additional holiday which it granted to all production and other employees at its Bushy Park plant. 12 The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by its failure and refusal to grant unit employees the general wage increase and additional holiday. In his brief in support of his Motion for Summary Judgment, counsel for the General Counsel specifically relies on the theory that Respondent's withholding of such increases and benefits from unit employees was because they chose to be represented by the Union-a theory which is clearly premised upon Section 8(a)(3). Respondent, in its response to the Notice To Show Cause, fully addresses itself to this theory of a violation. Further- more, it is clear that, based on documents submitted by Respondent itself, an 8(a)(3) violation has been established. Therefore, as the facts herein are essentially undisputed, our finding this 8(a)(3) and (I) violation on the grounds set forth above is in the circumstances proper. On the basis of the entire record, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Respondent is now, and has been at all times material herein, a New Jersey corporation with a plant located in Charleston, South Carolina, where it is engaged in the manufacture of dyestuffs for the coloring of textiles, paper, and leather. During the past 12 months, which period is representative of all times material herein, Respon- dent recieved goods and materials from points directly outside the State of South Carolina valued in excess of $50,000, and during the same period shipped products to points directly outside the State of South Carolina valued in excess of $50,000. We find, on the basis of the foregoing, that Respondent is, and has been at all times material herein, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that Contrary to Respondent's denial, we construe the Union's letter to be a request that Respondent grant the wage increase and additional holiday to the unit employees. Finally, Respondent has filed a motion that the portions of the complaint alleging that it violated Sec. 8(aXS) and ( I) of the Act by refusing and failing to grant an additional holiday to unit employees be stricken on the grounds that the charges filed failed to specifically allege such a violation. We hereby deny Respondent's motion. Allis Chalmers Corporation, 224 NLRB 1199, 1217-18(1976). 'o Florida Ste'l Corporation, 220 NLRB 1201, 1203 (1975), and cases cited therein. it Id 12 See AMC Air Conditioning Compony, 232 NLRB No. 24 (1977). and cases cited therein at fn. I I. ill DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Representation Proceeding 1. The unit The following employees of the Respondent constitute a unit appropriate for collective-bargain- ing purposes within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All maintenance department employees including instrument repairmen and mechanics, storeroom clerks, and utility operators at the Employer's Bushy Park plant, Charleston, South Carolina, but excluding all production employees, office clerical employees, laboratory employees, techni- cians, waste water treatment employees, profes- sional employees, watchmen, guards, and supervi- sors as defined in the Act. 2. The certification On September 30, 1976, a majority of the employ- ees of Respondent in said unit, in a secret-ballot election conducted under the supervision of the Regional Director for Region 11, designated the Union as their representative for the purpose of collective bargaining with Respondent. The Union was certified as the collective-bargaining representa- tive of the employees in said unit on October 8, 1976, and the Union continues to be such exclusive representative within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. B. The Unfair Labor Practices Commencing on or about October 20, 1976, and at all times thereafter, the Union has requested the Respondent to bargain collectively with it as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of all the employees in the above-described unit. Com- mencing on or about November 11, 1976, and continuing at all times thereafter to date, the Respondent has: (1) Refused to recognize the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative for em- ployees in said unit; (2) refused to bargain with the Union over wages, hours, working conditions, and conditions of employment; (3) refused the Union's request for the names, dates of hire, job classifica- tions, rates of pay, and existing benefits of all employees in the unit; (4) refused to grant to unit employees a general wage increase averaging 10 percent which it granted to production and other employees on or about November 15, 1976; and (5) refused to grant to employees in the appropriate unit an additional holiday, effective in 1977, which it granted to production and other employees. Accordingly, we find that Respondent has, since on or about October 20, 1976, and November 11, 1976, respectively, and at all times thereafter, refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit and that, by such refusal, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. In addition, we find that Respondent has, since on or about November 11, 1976, failed and refused to grant a wage increase and an additional holiday to unit employees because they selected the Union as their exclusive representative and that, by such conduct, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) 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 its opera- tions described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relationship 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 com- merce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5), (3), and (I) of the Act, we shall order that it cease and desist therefrom. We shall further order that Respondent, upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate unit, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. We shall also order that Respondent, upon request, furnish the Union the information with respect to unit employ- ees which it requested by letter dated October 20, 1976. We additionally shall require that Respondent make whole the unit employees for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimina- tion against them by granting them the general wage increase averaging 10 percent, retroactive to on or 112 VERONA DYESTUFF DIVISION about November 15, 1976, the date Respondent granted such wage increases to its production and other employees at its Bushy Park plant, together with interest thereon to be computed in the manner prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).13 We shall further require Respondent to grant an additional holiday to eligible unit employ- ees. 14 In order to insure that the employees in the appropriate unit will be accorded the services of their selected bargaining agent for the period provided by law, we shall construe the initial period of certifica- tion as beginning on the date Respondent com- mences to bargain in good faith with the Union as the recognized bargaining representative in the appropriate unit. See Mar-Jac Poultry Company, Inc., 136 NLRB 785 (1962); Commerce Company d/b/a Lamar Hotel, 140 NLRB 226, 229 (1962), enfd. 328 F.2d 600 (C.A. 5, 1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 817 (1964); Burnett Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419, 1421 (1964), enfd. 350 F.2d 57 (C.A. 10, 1965). The Board, upon the basis of the foregoing facts and the entire record, makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Verona Dyestuff Division Mobay Chemical Corporation is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. All maintenance department employees includ- ing instrument repairmen and mechanics, storeroom clerks, and utility operators at the Employer's Bushy Park plant, Charleston, South Carolina, but exclud- ing all production employees, office clerical employ- ees, laboratory employees, technicians, waste water treatment employees, professional employees, watch- men, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. By refusing on or about October 20, 1976, and at all material times thereafter, to recognize and bargain collectively with the above-named labor organization as the exclusive bargaining representa- tive of all the employees of Respondent in the appropriate unit, Respondent has engaged in, and is 13 See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). 14 In its announcement of January 3, 1977, Respondent notified nonunit employees that each could select a floating holiday on any day during the week of his birthday in 1977, subject to the following conditions: (1) In order to be eligible, the employee must have been employed by Respondent for a period of 6 months; (2) the request for the holiday must be made at least 5 working days in advance; (3) the holiday must be compatible with engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. 5. By refusing on or about November 11, 1976, and at all material times thereafter, to bargain collectively with the above-named labor organization as the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees of Respondent in the appropriate unit, and by refusing to furnish wage and employment information concerning said unit employees, Re- spondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. 6. By refusing on or about November 11, 1976, and at all material times thereafter, to grant to employees in the appropriate unit a general wage increase averaging 10 percent which it granted to all its production and other employees at its Bushy Park plant on or about November 15, 1976, Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 7. By refusing on or about November 11, 1976, and all material times thereafter, to grant to the employees in the appropriate unit an additional holiday, effective in 1977, which it granted to all its production and other employees at its Bushy Park plant, Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. 8. By the aforesaid refusals to bargain, Respon- dent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced, and is interfering with, restraining, and coercing, employ- ees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean- ing of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Verona Dyestuff Division Mobay Chemical Corpo- ration, Charleston, South Carolina, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: i. Cease and desist from: the needs of the employee's department, as decided by the department heads. In requiring Respondent to grant an additional holiday to unit employees, we recognize that particular unit employees may not have met the eligibility requirement of 6 months' employment with Respondent. These matters may best be resolved in the compliance stage of this proceeding. 113 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (a) Refusing to bargain collectively concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees in the following appropriate unit: All maintenance department employees including instrument repairmen and mechanics, storeroom clerks, and utility operators at the Employer's Bushy Park plant, Charleston, South Carolina, but excluding all production employees, office clerical employees, laboratory employees, techni- cians, waste water treatment employees, profes- sional employees, watchmen, guards, and supervi- sors as defined in the Act. (b) Refusing to bargain collectively with the above- named labor organization by refusing to furnish the said labor organization with wage and employment information concerning unit employees. (c) Refusing and failing to grant to unit employees the general wage increase averaging 10 percent and the additional holiday which it granted to all production and other employees at its Bushy Park plant because such unit employees selected the above-named labor organization as their bargaining representative. (d) In any other manner interfering with, restrain- ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, recognize and bargain collective- ly with the above-named labor organization as the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. (b) Upon request, bargain collectively with the above-named labor organization by furnishing it with the following wage and employment informa- tion concerning unit employees: Dates of hire and seniority by job classification within the department; a list of all employees in the certified unit by department; a list of job classifications for all employees in the bargaining unit showing the hourly rate of pay for each employee, plus the employee's position in the progressive rate structure; a descrip- tion of the fringe benefits currently in effect in the plant; and copies of any manuals describing seniority arrangements, leaves of absence, safety and health rules, and other similar information. (c) Make whole the unit employees for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against them by granting them the general wage increase averaging 10 percent and, to those unit employees eligible, an additional holiday, which Respondent granted to all its production and other employees at its Bushy Park plant, in the manner set forth in the section of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (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 the terms of this Order. (e) Post at its Bushy Park plant, Charleston, South Carolina, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 15 Copies of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region II1, after being duly signed by Respondent's representa- tive, shall be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 11, in writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what steps have been taken to comply herewith. 15 In the event that this 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 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 WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain collectively concerning rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit described below. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the above-named labor organization by refusing to furnish it with the wage and employment information it has requested with respect to the employees in the appropriate unit described below. WE WILL NOT refuse and fail to grant to the unit employees the general wage increase averaging 10 percent and, to those unit employees eligible, an additional holiday which we granted to all our 114 VERONA DYESTUFF DIVISION production and other employees at our Bushy Park plant. WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed to them in Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL, upon request, recognize and bargain collectively with the above-named labor organiza- tion, as the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described below, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement. WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with the above-named labor organization by furnishing it with the following information it has requested concerning the unit employees: Dates of hire, plus seniority by job classification within the department; a list of job classifications for all employees in the bargaining unit showing the hourly rate of pay for each employee, plus the employee's position in the progressive rate struc- ture; a description of the fringe benefits currently in effect in the plant; and copies of any employee manuals describing seniority arrangements, leaves of absence, safety and health rules, and other similar matters. WE WILL make whole the unit employees for any loss of pay they may have suffered by reason of our discrimination against them by granting them the general wage increases averaging 10 percent and, to those unit employees eligible, an additional holiday, which we granted to all our production and other employees at our Bushy Park plant. The appropriate bargaining unit is: All maintenance department employees including instrument repairmen and me- chanics, storeroom clerks, and utility opera- tors at the Employer's Bushy Park plant, Charleston, South Carolina, but excluding all production employees, office clerical employees, laboratory employees, techni- cians, waste water treatment employees, professional employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. VERONA DYESTUFF DIVISION MOBAY CHEMICAL CORPORATION 115