Loral Defense Systems-Akron

755 320 NLRB No. 54 LORAL DEFENSE SYSTEMS-AKRON 1 On August 8, 1994, Administrative Law Judge James L. Rose issued the attached decision. The Respondents each filed exceptions and supporting briefs. The General Counsel filed a brief in response to the Respondents’ exceptions. The Respondents each filed an an- swering brief. 2 The Respondents have excepted to some of the judge’s credibility findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an admin- istrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear prepon- derance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incor- rect. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings. In adopting the judge’s finding that Respondent Aircraft violated Sec. 8(a)(5) of the Act by refusing to arbitrate grievances identified in the judge’s decision, we do not pass on his conclusion that there can be no relitigation of the findings of the United States District Court judge concerning the existence of an agreement containing an arbitration mechanism. Rather, we adopt the administrative law judge’s independent finding, based on the factual findings in the dis- trict court proceeding, that there was an agreement to arbitrate. 3 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order to tailor it to the specific violations found, and to require that the Respondents re- scind the comprehensive medical plans only if requested by the Union. Provisions in the attached notice reflect these modifications. 4 The Respondents also modified the plan for nonunit (salaried) employees. Thus, the proviso in Respondents’ reservation of rights was satisfied. Loral Defense Systems-Akron, Division of Loral Corporation and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple- ment Workers of America and its Local No. 856 (UAW), AFL–CIO Aircraft Braking Systems Corporation and Inter- national Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer- ica and its Local No. 856, UAW. Cases 8–CA– 25507, 8–CA–25508, and 8–CA–25765 January 31, 1996 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS BROWNING AND COHEN The issues in this case include: whether the judge correctly found that the Respondents violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by unilaterally changing health care plans; and, whether the judge correctly found that Respondent Aircraft Braking Systems (Re- spondent Aircraft) violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by unilaterally repudiating an interim agree- ment to arbitrate.1 The Board has considered the deci- sion and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,2 and conclusions, except as modified below, and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.3 The Union represents separate appropriate bargain- ing units of Respondent Loral Defense Systems (Re- spondent Loral) and Respondent Aircraft. On August 10 and October 14, 1991, respectively, Respondent Loral and Respondent Aircraft implemented their final contract offers after reaching lawful impasse during ne- gotiations for separate successor agreements. Respondent Loral’s implemented offer provided for ‘‘medical benefits under the 80/20 option of the Com- prehensive Medical Plan.’’ It also included the follow- ing provision: The Employer reserves the right to amend or modify any part of this Plan, including employee contributions on Drug Copayments, but will not do so unless the plan is likewise amended or modified for non-Bargaining Unit Employees. Respondent Aircraft’s implemented offer also pro- vided for medical benefits under the Comprehensive Medical Plan, and contained the following similar pro- vision: The Company reserves the right to amend or modify the Comprehensive Medical plan; to re- vise the employee contributions; or to revise the co-payments; but will not do so unless the sala- ried plan is also revised. On January 29, 1993, the Respondents each in- formed the Union that, effective May 1, the Com- prehensive Medical Plan would be replaced by the Aetna Managed Choices Plan.4 The Respondents fur- ther advised that the change was not negotiable. The Union protested orally and in writing. The Respond- ents implemented the Aetna Managed Choices Plan on May 1. The Respondents argued before the judge, and on exceptions to the Board, that they were privileged to unilaterally change health care plan providers by the language in their implemented offers reserving to them ‘‘the right to amend or modify’’ any part of the Com- prehensive Medical Plan. The judge found untenable the Respondents’ argu- ment that the health care proposals amounted to a uni- laterally imposed waiver. Citing McClatchy News- papers, 299 NLRB 1045 (1990), enf. denied and re- manded 964 F.2d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1992), and Colo- rado-Ute Electrical Assn., 295 NLRB 607 (1989), enf. denied 939 F.2d 1392 (10th Cir. 1991), the judge found that an imposed waiver is inoperative to deny a union the right to bargain about future changes in man- datory subjects. We agree with the judge that by unilaterally chang- ing health care plans the Respondents violated Section 8(a)(5). In adopting the judge’s findings, however, we do not find it necessary to rely on his ‘‘waiver’’ ra- tionale. Preliminary to determining whether the Respondents could lawfully implement the new health plans we must determine whether the discretion to change plan providers was ‘‘reasonably comprehended’’ within the 756 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD original proposals. See generally NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736 (1962). If it was not comprehended, then the Respondents’ changes were unlawful because the Union was not afforded an opportunity to bargain over them. We find that changing to the Aetna Managed Choices Plan was not ‘‘reasonably comprehended’’ within the original health care proposals rejected by the Union and implemented by the Respondents. The implemented provisions reserved to the Respondents the discretion to ‘‘amend’’ or ‘‘modify’’ the Com- prehensive Medical Plan. The Aetna Managed Choices Plan was not merely an amendment or modification of an existing plan, but rather constituted a replacement of the plan with an entirely new delivery system for health insurance. This new plan was substantially dif- ferent from the Comprehensive Medical Plan; it elimi- nated the option of selecting a health maintenance or- ganization (HMO), the employees’ choice of doctors, and the $1500 out of pocket maximum on costs. It also imposed a $1 million lifetime limit on benefits. More- over, Respondent Aircraft also eliminated oral surgery benefits. Because the substitution of plans was not reasonably comprehended within the implemented offer, the Re- spondents were obligated to bargain with the Union prior to making the change. Accordingly, the imple- mentation of the Aetna Managed Choices Plan without bargaining with the Union violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec- ommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that: A. Respondent Aircraft Braking Systems Corpora- tion, Akron, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified. 1. Delete paragraph 2(a) and reletter all subsequent paragraphs. 2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(c). ‘‘(b) If the Union requests, rescind the Aetna Man- aged Choices health insurance plan made effective on May 1, 1993, and reinstate the Comprehensive Medical Plan as to bargaining unit employees and make such employees whole for any losses they may have suf- fered as a result of the plan change, as provided in Kraft Plumbing & Heating, 252 NLRB 891 (1980), enfd. mem. 661 F.2d 940 (9th Cir. 1981). Reimburse- ment shall be made with interest computed in the man- ner prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). The appropriate unit is: ‘‘All hourly rated production, shipping, receiving, stores, maintenance, inspection and production control employees in the following classifications only: Blue Print room attendant, all-around in- spector, senior inspector, junior inspector and ap- prentice inspector employed by Aircraft Braking Systems Corporation but excluding all office em- ployees, supervisors, pattern makers, all other sal- aried employees, engineering employees, plant protection employees, time keeping employees and all employees employed by Loral Defense Systems-Akron, Division of Loral Corporation.’’ 3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the ad- ministrative law judge. B. Respondent Loral Defense Systems-Akron, Divi- sion of Loral Corporation, Akron, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified. 1. Delete paragraph 2(a) and substitute the following for paragraph 2(b) and reletter all subsequent para- graphs. ‘‘(a) If the Union requests, rescind the Aetna Man- aged Choices health insurance plan made effective on May 1, 1993, and reinstate the Comprehensive Medical Plan as to bargaining unit employees and make such employees whole for any losses they may have suf- fered as a result of the plan change, as provided in Kraft Plumbing & Heating, 252 NLRB 891 (1980), enfd. mem. 661 F.2d 940 (9th Cir. 1981). Reimburse- ment shall be made with interest computed in the man- ner prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). The appropriate unit is: ‘‘All hourly rated production, shipping, receiving, stores, maintenance, inspection and production control employees in the following classifications only: Blue Print room attendant, all-around in- spector, senior inspector, junior inspector and ap- prentice inspector employed by Loral Corporation, but excluding all office employees, supervisors, pattern makers, all other salaried employees, engi- neering employees, plant protection employees, time keeping employees and all employees em- ployed by Aircraft Braking Systems Corpora- tion.’’ 2. Substitute the attached notice for that of the ad- ministrative law judge. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or- dered us to post and abide by this notice. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural 757 LORAL DEFENSE SYSTEMS-AKRON Implement Workers of America and its Local No. 856, UAW, by unilaterally changing health insurance plans or refusing to submit unresolved grievances to arbitra- tion. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL, upon the request of the Union, rescind the health insurance plan made effective May 1, 1993, known as Managed Choices and we will reinstate the Comprehensive Medical Plan. WE WILL make whole any bargaining unit employ- ees who may have suffered any loss as a result of our unilateral change in health plans, with interest. The ap- propriate unit is: All hourly rated production, shipping, receiving, stores, maintenance, inspection and production control employees in the following classifications only: Blue Print room attendant, all-around in- spector, senior inspector, junior inspector and ap- prentice inspector employed by Aircraft Braking Systems Corporation but excluding all office em- ployees, supervisors, pattern makers, all other sal- aried employees, engineering employees, plant protection employees, time keeping employees and all employees employed by Loral Defense Systems, Akron, Division of Loral Corporation. WE WILL agree to arbitrate grievances A–8770, A– 8779, A–8886, A–8712, and any other grievances which the Union has appropriately designated for arbi- tration. AIRCRAFT BRAKING SYSTEMS COR- PORATION APPENDIX B NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or- dered us to post and abide by this notice. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America and its Local No. 856, UAW, by unilaterally changing health insurance cov- erage plans. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL, upon the request of the Union, rescind the health insurance plan made effective May 1, 1993, known as Managed Choices and we will reinstate the Comprehensive Medical Plan. WE WILL make whole any bargaining unit employ- ees who may have suffered any loss as a result of our unilateral change in health plans, with interest. The ap- propriate unit is: All hourly rated production, shipping, receiving, stores, maintenance, inspection and production control employees in the following classifications only: Blue Print room attendant, all-around in- spector, senior inspector, junior inspector and ap- prentice inspector employed by Loral Corporation, but excluding all office employees, supervisors, pattern makers, all other salaried employees, engi- neering employees, plant protection employees, time keeping employees and all employees em- ployed by Aircraft Braking Systems Corporation LORAL DEFENSE SYSTEMS-AKRON, DI- VISION OF LORAL CORPORATION Allen Binstock, Esq., for the General Counsel. Mark Portnoy, Esq., of Westbury, New York, for Respondent Loral. Carol MacKenzie, Esq., of Westbury, New York, for Re- spondent Aircraft Braking. Edward C. Kaminski, Esq., of Akron, Ohio, for the Respond- ents. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAMES L. ROSE, Administrative Law Judge. These consoli- dated cases were tried before me at Akron, Ohio, on May 10, 11, and 12, 1994, on the General Counsel’s complaint that alleged generally that the Respondents had engaged in violations of Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. Each Respondent denied that it committed the unfair labor practices alleged. Pursuant to a pretrial order, the allegations against each Respondent were tried separately. Following the close of the hearing, counsel submitted briefs. On the record as a whole, including my observation of the witnesses, briefs, and argu- ments of counsel, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION Aircraft Braking Systems Corporation (Aircraft) is a Dela- ware corporation with an office and place of business at Akron, Ohio, and is engaged in the manufacture of braking systems for commercial, general aviation, and military air- craft. In the conduct of this business, Aircraft annually ships directly to points outside the State of Ohio goods, products, and materials valued in excess of $50,000. Loral Defense Systems-Akron, Division of Loral Corpora- tion (Loral), is a Delaware corporation, with an office and place of business at Akron, Ohio, and is there engaged in the manufacture of flight simulators and radar systems under contract with the United States and various foreign govern- ments. In the conduct of this business, Loral annually ships 758 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD directly to points outside the State of Ohio goods, products, and materials valued in excess of $50,000. Each Respondent admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION The Charging Party, International Union, United Auto- mobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America and its Local No. 856 (UAW), AFL–CIO (the Union), is admitted to be, and I find is, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background Facts For many years the Union has represented the employees involved here, however, with different employers and bar- gaining units. After a corporate reorganization in 1988, the Union represented these employees in a single bargaining unit, and the parties had a collective-bargaining agreement effective from October 31, 1988, to August 10, 1991. On July 26, 1991, pursuant to a Board Order in a unit clarifica- tion matter (Case 8–UC–258) the single unit was held no longer appropriate as a result of the change in organizational structure of the companies. The Union was then recognized by each Respondent as the bargaining representative of its employees in an appropriate unit. And each continued in ef- fect the then existing collective-bargaining agreement until August 10. The parties engaged in contract negotiations, but were un- able to reach agreements and on August 10, 1991, Aircraft unilaterally implemented its final contract offer and, on Octo- ber 14, 1991, Loral implemented its final offer. As implemented, Loral’s final offer contained a provision to provide for ‘‘medical benefits under the 80/20 Option of the Comprehensive Medical plan.’’ The agreement also pro- vided that on the effective date that plan, the current ‘‘Medi- cal Necessity’’ plan, would be terminated. Under the provi- sions of the Comprehensive Medical Plan is the following: The Employer reserves the right to amend or modify any part of this Plan, including employee contributions or Drug Copayments, but will not do so unless the Plan is likewise amended or modified for non-Bargaining Unit Employees. The final proposal of Aircraft also contained a provision to replace the current medical coverage, the Comprehensive Medical Plan and prescription drug benefit plan. This pro- posal also included the following: The Company reserves the right to amend or modify the Comprehensive Medical plan; to revise the em- ployee contributions; or to revise the co-payments; but will not do so unless the salaried plan is also revised. Aircraft proposed that the grievance-and-arbitration proce- dure be changed by deleting named permanent arbitrators and substituting therefor the American Arbitration Associa- tion, and defining how the parties would meet to select an arbitrator. B. The Facts Leading to These Cases 1. The Aircraft grievances Although Aircraft proposed to change the manner of se- lecting arbitrators, in its final offer the substance of the grievance-and-arbitration mechanism was maintained. And after implementation of the proposal, the Union filed several grievances alleging violations of the contract. There has followed substantial litigation over the Union’s insistence that the denial of certain grievances be arbitrated. Aircraft has taken the position, and so argues here, that the matters are not arbitrable because, as averred in its answer, ‘‘there is no agreement in effect between the parties, no rati- fication has occurred and the ‘no strike’ provision contained in the implemented final proposal is not in effect.’’ It is alleged that since March 8, 1993, Aircraft has refused to arbitrate grievances A–8700, A–8779, A–8886, and A– 8712. This denial was generally confirmed by the testimony of Edward L. Searle, Aircraft’s director of human resources, as well as by letter he sent to the American Arbitration Asso- ciation dated March 8, 1993, relating to grievance A–8700. Aircraft sought to enjoin arbitration of grievance A–8700 (regarding a lump sum payment to employees) in the United States district court, but, as noted below, was unsuccessful. The matter has now been arbitrated. The parties entered into a ‘‘stand still’’ agreement with regard to grievance A–8779 (regarding implementation of the Comprehensive Medical Plan) pending resolution of parallel issues in Federal court. Subsequent to the court’s decision, the Union sought to rein- state the arbitration procedure, but Aircraft has declined. Air- craft has also refused to arbitrate grievance A–8886 (to rein- state the Comprehensive Medical Plan) but contends that such is not abritrable and in any event the Union has never demanded arbitration. Grievance A–8712 (relating to outsourcing) has been the subject of another injunction action in United States district court, with the court entering an order to compel arbitration. Subsequent to the hearing here, the arbitration has been held. 2. The change in health coverage On January 29, 1993, both Respondents announced to the Union that effective May 1, 1993, the health benefits plan would be changed from that set forth in the implemented proposals to Aetna Managed Choice Plan. Union representa- tives were informed of this in meetings with Searle for Air- craft Braking and Gregory T. Myers for Loral. And by letter of January 29, employees in the two bargaining units were informed of the change. The Union protested the implementation of this change to each Respondent, and instructed its members to sign the en- rollment change forms under protest. At the request of the Union, inclusion of dental benefits (consistent with that pro- vided for salaried employees) has been agreed to by the Re- spondents. B. Analysis and Concluding Findings 1. The arbitration issue As noted above, following negotiations in 1991, Aircraft implemented its final contract proposal, the legality of which is not in issue here. Thus the contract as implemented con- 759 LORAL DEFENSE SYSTEMS-AKRON tained a mechanism to resolve grievances with arbitration as the final step. Nevertheless, Aircraft has engaged in a pro- tracted course of conduct by which it has refused to submit certain grievances to arbitration—generally taking the posi- tion that since the Union has never ratified the contract, there is none and therefore there is no arbitration mechanism. On May 14, 1993, United States District Judge Sam H. Bell issued an order in which he found that there exists an agreement between Aircraft and the Union to arbitrate griev- ances and that grievance A–8700 should be submitted to binding arbitration. The court rejected the argument that rati- fication by the Union was a necessary condition to imple- mentation of the arbitration mechanism. Since the Federal courts are charged with fashioning a body of substantive Federal labor law with regard to collec- tive-bargaining agreements, Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Alabama, 353 U.S. 448 (1956), and since the existence of a contract with an arbitration mechanism is clearly within the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, the Board, I believe, is bound. Thus, on motion of the General Counsel at the outset of this proceeding, I ruled that the issue of whether there ex- ists an arbitration mechanism between the parties would not be relitigated—that the decision of Judge Bell would be the rule in this case. Further, I conclude the same result would be reached inde- pendently by the Board. Aircraft proposed and then imple- mented a contract that contained an arbitration clause which was substantially the same as in the expired contract. And Aircraft notified the Union that it would enforce the ‘‘no- strike’’ provision of the agreement, which the Supreme Court has held is the quid pro quo for an arbitration provision. Air- craft has also taken the position before the Board, in other cases involving this dispute, that an arbitration provision ex- ists. By its actions, as well as the clear language of the imple- mented contract, Aircraft agreed to an arbitration mechanism. To then repudiate this agreement by refusing to arbitrate the grievances set forth above was clearly a breach of its bar- gaining obligations and was violative of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. 2. Change in the health benefits Though the precise words spoken by officials of the Re- spondents at the meetings on January 29 is disputed, there is no question that each Respondent made the unilateral deci- sion to change the health insurance coverage for bargaining unit employees. Further, I credit the testimony of the General Counsel’s witnesses to the effect that they were told the change was instituted by higher corporate authority and would not be the subject of bargaining. Finally, Searle testi- fied that the structure of the plan was not subject to change, from which I conclude that negotiations could not have been fruitful on fundamental issues involving health insurance. Although somewhat disputing what the Union was told, the real defense of both Respondents rests on language in their respective final offers that the ‘‘Employer reserves the right to amend or modify any part of this Plan . . . .’’ The General Counsel contends that changing coverage from one plan to another is not an amendment or a modification. Rath- er it is a fundamental change about which the Respondents were obligated to bargain with the Union. Unquestionably health insurance is a mandatory subject of bargaining. Thus the language relied on, if agreed to by the Union, would arguably amount to a waiver to bargain over a mandatory subject. Certainly a bargaining agent can make such a waiver; however, the Board has consistently held that doing so must be clear and unequivocal. The Respondents argue that by implementing their final proposals, the Union thereby waived its right to bargain over modifications or changes to the new health insurance plan. I find such an argument untenable. Under certain circumstances, including those here, an em- ployer may on impasse in negotiations change terms and conditions of employment consistent with its proposals. Taft Broadcasting Co., 163 NLRB 475 (1967), enfd. sub. nom. Television Artists AFTRA v. NLRB, 295 F.2d 622 (D.C. Cir. 1968). Such does not mean, however, that an employer may propose and bargain to impasse on a clause the effect of which forecloses the union’s future right to bargain. The Respondents argue that they can propose a substantive change in a mandatory subject of bargaining and include therein a provision that the Union waives its right to bargain about future changes (a nonmandatory subject) and this binds the Union, regardless of whether the Union accepted or re- jected the proposal. Such a reading of the Act would clearly eviscerate the employees’ right to bargain collectively. It is one thing for a union to waive its right to bargain over some subject; it is quite another for an employer to impose such a waiver under the guise of reaching impasse. The Respond- ents equate specific waiver agreed to by the Union in a con- tract with a reserved right they proposed to which the Union did not agree. I reject the Respondents’ analysis. Both Respondents cite the remand of McClatchy News- papers, 299 NLRB 1045 (1990), enf. denied and remanded 964 F.2d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1992), as authority that by bargain- ing to impasse on a mandatory subject, the employer can proceed to make the proposed change. There the court found there had been an impasse on substance of the wage increase proposal and, contrary to the Board, concluded that the com- pany could implement it. The court disagreed with the Board only on the question of whether there had been an impasse on how the wage increase might be implemented. The court did not reject language in the Board’s decision that the com- pany could not unilaterally impose a waiver on the union. To the same effect, see also Colorado-Ute Electrical Assn., 295 NLRB 607 (1989), enf. denied 939 F.2d 1392 (10th Cir. 1991). I conclude that an employer may, on impasse, change a condition of employment consistent with its proposal, but it may not thereby bar the representative of its employees from bargaining about future changes. I therefore conclude that the language relied on by the Respondents is inoperative to deny the Union the right to bargain about proposed changes in the health plan implemented by the Respondents in 1991— whether changing details of that plan or adopting an alto- gether new plan. The Respondents further argue that the Union did not ex- ercise due diligence in requesting them to bargain, assuming they had the obligation to do so. I reject this argument. I credit the General Counsel’s witnesses that on January 29 the medical coverage change was presented to them as a final decision handed down from a higher corporate level. This 760 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and rec- ommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 2 If 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.’’ conclusion is supported by letter of January 29 sent to all Loral employees: The attached brochure provide[s] you with an over- view of the benefit changes that will become effective May 1, 1993. You will be given more detailed informa- tion over the next several weeks. The Union did protest the change and filed a grievance, which is one that Aircraft Braking has refused to process. And the Union urged its members to sign the enrollment forms under protest. On these facts it can scarcely be found that the Union did not attend to its rights. I therefore conclude that by unilaterally implementing the change in insurance plans, announced on January 29 effec- tive on May 1, 1993, each Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. That the Union requested and the Re- spondents agreed to inclusion of dental coverage does not alter this conclusion. The Respondents decided to change the insurance coverage and presented this as a completed thing to the Union; thus, a subsequent change in a detail based on the Union’s request did not make initial implementation law- ful. Further, whatever negotiations the parties had after Janu- ary 29 about a particular coverage under Managed Choices, there could have been no altering the decision to change plans. REMEDY Having concluded that the Respondents have engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged, I shall recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommended1 ORDER A. The Respondent Aircraft Braking Systems Corporation, Akron, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to bargain with International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America and its Local No. 856 (UAW), AFL–CIO by re- fusing to comply with the arbitration provisions of the con- tract it implemented on August 10, 1991, and by unilaterally changing the plan covering bargaining unit employees’ health insurance. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain- ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar- anteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act. (a) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit concerning terms and conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody the understanding in a signed agreement: All hourly rated production, shipping, receiving, stores, maintenance, inspection and production control employ- ees in the following classifications only: Blue Print room attendant, all-around inspector, senior inspector, junior inspector and apprentice inspector employed by Aircraft Braking Systems Corporation but excluding all office employees, supervisors, patternmakers, all other salaried employees, engineering employees, plant pro- tection employees, timekeeping employees and all em- ployees employed by Loral Defense Systems-Akron, Division of Loral Corporation. (b) Submit to arbitration as provided in the contract imple- mented on August 10, 1991, grievances A–8770, A–8779, A–8886, and A–8712 and any other properly brought by the Union. (c) Rescind Managed Choices health insurance plan and reinstitute the Comprehensive Medical Plan and make whole any bargaining unit employee who may have suffered any loss as a result of the unilateral change in plans effective May 1, 1993. (d) Post at its facility in Akron, Ohio, copies of the at- tached notice marked ‘‘Appendix A.’’2 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 8, after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representa- tive, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon re- ceipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de- faced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply. B. Respondent Loral Defense Systems-Akron, Division of Loral Corporation, Akron, Ohio, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to bargain with International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America and its Local No. 856 (UAW), AFL–CIO by uni- laterally altering terms of conditions of employment. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain- ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guar- anteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef- fectuate the policies of the Act. (a) On request, bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the following appropriate unit concerning terms and conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody the understanding in a signed agreement: All hourly rated production, shipping, receiving, stores, maintenance, inspection and production control employ- 761 LORAL DEFENSE SYSTEMS-AKRON 3 See fn. 2, above. ees in the following classifications only: Blue Print room attendant, all-around inspector, senior inspector, junior inspector and apprentice inspector employed by Loral Corporation, but excluding all office employees, supervisors, patternmakers, all other salaried employees, engineering employees, plant protection employees, timekeeping employees and all employees employed by Aircraft Braking Systems Corporation. (b) Rescind Managed Choices health insurance plan made effective on May 1, 1993, and reinstate the Comprehensive Medical Plan as to bargaining unit employees and make any such employee whole for any losses he may have suffered as a result of the plan change. (c) Post at its facility in Akron, Ohio, copies of the at- tached notice marked ‘‘Appendix B.’’3 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 8 after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representa- tive, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon re- ceipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, de- faced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply.