Dependable Building Maintenance Co.; Quality Building Maintenance Co.; And Metropolitan Building Maintenance Co.

216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Dependable Building Maintenance Company; Qual- ity Building Maintenance Company; and Metro- politan Building Maintenance Company and Service Employees International Union, Local No. 6. Case 19-CA-14961 22 February 1985 DECISION AND ORDER REMANDING By CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS HUNTER AND DENNIS On 25 August 1983 Administrative Law Judge Clifford H. Anderson issued the attached decision. The Respondents filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in sup- port of the judge's decision. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions as modified. We agree with the judge's finding that the Re- spondents violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act when they implemented their final offers in August 1982 before an impasse had occurred. In so concluding, we find that the information the Union had been requesting from the Respondents was rel- evant to the negotiations, and that the Union did not have this information for a sufficient period of time before the Respondents implemented their final offers. Moreover, we find that post-August events are irrelevant to the issue of whether an unfair labor practice occurred in August 1982. Contrary to the judge, however, we conclude that the issue of an alleged post-August 1982 im- passe and the propriety of the Respondents' No- vember 1982 and March 1983 reimplementations should be decided now rather than at the compli- ance stage, as this issue may affect the judge's order for a return to the status quo ante as of August 1982. Accordingly, we remand this issue to the judge for consideration at this time and for preparation of a supplemental decision. The judge may, in his discretion, order a further hearing on this issue if he deems it necessary to receive more evidence. ORDER It is ordered that the administrative law judge shall prepare and serve on the parties a supplemen- tal decision containing such resolutions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations as found neces- sary consistent with the remand. Following service of the supplemental decision on the parties, the provisions of Section 102.46 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations shall be ap- plicable. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE CLIFFORD H ANDERSON, Administrative Law Judge I heard this case in trial on April 19 and 20, 1983, in Seat- tle, Washington, pursuant to a complaint and notice of hearing issued on October 27, 1982, by the Regional Di- rector for Region 19 of the National Labor Relations Board based on a charge filed on September 9, 1982, by Service Employees International Union, Local No 6 (the Union) against Dependable Building Maintenance Com- pany (Dependable), Quality Building Maintenance Com- pany (Quality), and Metropolitan Building Maintenance Company (Metropolitan and, collectively with Dependa- ble and Quality, Respondent). The complaint, as amended, alleges and the answer, as amended, denies that Respondents unilaterally changed the working conditions of their employees represented by the Union at a time when no impasse existed in bar- gaining thus violating Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act (Act) All parties were given full opportunity to participate at the hearing, to introduce relevant evidence, to call, ex- amine, and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally, and to file posthearing briefs On the entire record herein, including the very helpful briefs of the General Counsel and Respondents, and from my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACTS' 1. JURISDICTION Respondents, and each of them, are State of Washing- ton corporations with places of business in King County, Washington, where they are engaged in the business of providing building maintenance and related services. In the course of their business operations, Respondents, and each of them, annually purchase and receive at their Washington state locations goods and services of a value in excess of $50,000 either directly from outside the State of Washington or from their suppliers who in turn ob- tained goods and materials directly from sources outside the State. H. LABOR ORGANIZATION STATUS The Union is and has been at all times material a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A Background Respondents have for many years bargained with the Union concerning their employees in the following units which are admittedly appropriate for purposes of collec- ' There were few critical disputes of fact involved herein Where not specifically noted these findings are based on the pleadings, stipulations of the parties, and uncontested documentary and testimonial evidence 274 NLRB No. 37 DEPENDABLE MAINTENANCE CO tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 of the Act All employees engaged in the work classification of janitor, traveling waxer/shampooer and foreperson. These employees work in various buildings in King and Snohomish Counties in Washington. Before 1976 Re- spondents negotiated individual contracts with the Union. In 1976 Respondents were members of a multiem- ployer association, the Maintenance Contractors Associa- tion (the Association), which negotiated a multiemployer contract with the Union. In 1979 bargaining was again on a single employer basis for each Respondent but was concurrent with bargaining by other Association mem- bers and identical contracts were entered into by the As- sociation members including Respondents These con- tracts expired on April 30, 1982 B. Bargaining in 1982 The Union and six Association members including Re- spondents met in coordinated single employer bargaining in 1982. The Union was represented by its president, Marc Earls, and the six employers by Eugene Nielsen, labor counsel Bargaining proceeded through April 19822 with numerous meetings, requests for information by the Union and the supplying of information to the Union by the employers, discussion of proposals, and some changes of positions by the parties. After the April 28 meeting the employers proposed a bifurcated or double tiered wage system with a lower wage rate in suburban areas. The Union did not respond to the employers' wage proposal At the next session, May 3, Earls requested various information in writing from each employer on the specific locations of buildings served by unit employees and information on staffing within and without the separate rate areas. Nielsen re- garded the Union's request as a delaying tactic and the parties thereafter exchanged missives. Nielsen by letter dated May 3 supplied certain of the information request- ed by the Union. Earls responded the same date with a letter asking for more information including, inter alia, the names and addresses of locations serviced with the wage areas as well as the name of employees who worked at each location. By letter dated May 4 Nielsen responded with certain additional information but stated that the specific locations of the buildings serviced by the employers and names of employees working in them would not "be forthcoming because the information the employers have provided is sufficient for your purposes " By letter dated May 5 , Earls responded noting that the Union needed the specific information requested to evaluate the employers' two-tiered wage proposal and to ascertain its specific effect on particular employees. The parties agreed to proceed with negotiations be- tween the Union and Aetna, who had been one of the six employers involved to this point. Negotiations with other Employers, including Respondents, were to await developments in the Aetna bargaining. Negotiations be- tween Aetna and the Union involving the same individ- 2 All dates hereinafter refer to 1982 unless otherwise noted 217 uals took place on May 5 and 18. During this time Aetna supplied the Union with information previously request- ed in the form the Union requested With the assistance of a Federal mediator, bargaining extended into June and July. These negotiations culminated in an agreement be- tween Aetna and the Union which was signed on July 8 Another employer, Star, soon thereafter agreed to adopt the Aetna agreement . The Union had earlier reached agreement with a major employer in the industry, ABM. The Aetna and ABM contracts each contained a two-tier wage system The ABM contract also contained what is commonly referred to as a "most favored nation" clause providing that the contracting employer would benefit from more favorable contract terms negotiated by the Union with other employers. On June 25, Nielson on behalf of Respondents wrote a letter to Earls. The letter noted that the Union had re- quested specific information on building locations, em- ployee names, and work hours but that the employers re- garded the information as "highly confidential " The letter further disputed the Union's need for the informa- tion in light of its agreement with ABM and its similar proposals to Aetna. The letter concluded by noting that if the Union explained further its need for the data the employers would "further consider whether to supply it to you " On July 13 negotiations resumed concerning Dependa- ble. Present were Earls, Nielsen, and representatives of each Respondent. Little progress was made. Nielsen pressed Earls to make a full proposal Earls contended that the Union could not formulate economic proposals without the data previously requested and denied. Niel- sen reiterated that the requested information was unnec- essary for the Union and that the Union was not in fact willing to agree to a contract other than that previously negotiated by Aetna or ABM. Earls disputed this. It was agreed to postpone the Quality negotiations then sched- uled to be held the next day and rather to meet on July 29. The parties thereafter exchanged additional corre- spondence. By letter dated July 21, Earls again requested of Nielsen the information previously sought stating that it was required to allow the Union to prepare its eco- nomic proposals. The letter noted that Respondents' wage proposals were different from those in either the Aetna or ABM agreements and therefore the requested data remained necessary to the Union. The letter also modified the Union's position on certain noneconomic proposals. By letter dated July 28, Nielsen responded ac- cepting some of the Union's proposals, accepting certain proposals conditionally, and changing some of Respond- ents' own proposals Enclosed with the letter was a com- plete proposed contract incorporating all of Respond- ents' then outstanding proposals. The letter further noted that unless the Union submitted a written statement out- lining significant changes in its position by 5 p.m. on August 4, Dependable "will conclude you are unwilling to move." The letter enclosed updated information of the type previously provided regarding location of work in or out of the two wage areas but again noted that Re- spondents would not provide the Union with the names 218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of buildings, i.e., their specific locations, or employee names as previously requested by the Union. On August 5, Nielsen wrote again to Earls. The timing of the receipt of this letter is discussed , infra . The letter announced that since the Union had not responded to the previous August 4 "deadline," Dependable was now con- sidering its previously delivered complete contract pro- posal, with but a single minor change, as a final offer. Enclosed with the letter was the building location and employee information previously sought by the Union "in the form you requested " The data was specifically submitted for Earls' personal review only.3 The letter contained the following concluding paragraphs: In view of the obvious impasse in the negotia- tions, Dependable has decided to implement its final offer However, Dependable will delay implementa- tion if you will give the written response specified in my letter of July 28, 1982 by noon, Tuesday, August 10, 1982. If its offer is implemented, the wages and benefits portions would be retroactive to August 1, 1982, the remainder will be effective as of August 11, 1982. Dependable through Nielsen prepared and had hand- delivered to Earls' office a second letter dated August 10. It noted that the "deadline of today noon" for a union response had passed. It continued, "Therefore, De- pendable is implementing its final offer as to wages and benefits effective August 1, 1982 and as to all other parts of the proposal effective as of noon today " Earls testified without contradiction that he did not personally discover either Nielsen's August 5 or August 10 letter until the early afternoon of August 10 when he came into the office. Earls responded to those two letters by letter dated August 11, in which he indicated that he: (1) had not had enough time to consider the information submitted, (2) objected to the Employer's conditions for meeting again , and (3) protested any implementation of the purported final offer. On August 11, Nielsen, on behalf of Metropolitan and separately on behalf of Quality, wrote to Earls His es- sentially identical letters stated that each employer was making the same offer as that made by Dependable The letters also supplied the same union-requested informa- tion as that supplied by Dependable-with the same re- strictions on use-and told Earls that each employer "as- sumes you will take the same position on its offer that you have taken on Dependable's, unless you deliver to me by noon on Thursday, August 12, 1982, a written statement stating a different position." On August 13, Nielsen, again separately on behalf of Metropolitan and Quality, wrote to Earls informing him that since his letter of August 11 had not been answered by the Union, the two employers' final offers were being implemented in part effective August 1 and in part effective August 13. The parties thereafter exchanged various contending and challenging letters reasserting the correctness of their own position in the matter and the error of the other's position The implementation of the last offers has not been rescinded Further negotiations between the parties, the furnish- ing of additional information in response to requests, and the exchange of additional letters occurred during the re- mainder of 1982 and extended at least into March 1983 No agreement has been reached. On November 2, 1982, and March 18, 1983, Nielsen wrote to Earls indicating the Respondents were reimplementing the final offers of August 1982 retroactively to August 1 C Analysis and Conclusions 1 Positions of the parties The complaint in this matter is extremely narrow and alleges only the August 1982 implementation of the final offers by each Respondent as a violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. The theory of the General Counsel is that the information requested by the Union,4 which was not supplied to the Union until just before the implementation of the last offers, was necessary to allow the Union to formulate a bargaining position and that, as a consequence of Respondents' failure to timely supply the information, no impasse occurred in bargaining be- tween the parties before the implementation of the last offers. Without an impasse, argues the General Counsel, the changes in working conditions in August 1982 by each Respondent violate Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Respondents argue that the information requests of the Union were no more than a sham and subterfuge de- signed by the Union to conceal its rigid intention to accept no contract from Respondents different from the ABM or Aetna agreements. Relying primarily on evi- dence of subsequent negotiations, Respondents argue that there was no movement by or even a differing proposal offered by the Union before August on economic issues and, further, that, after the requested information was supplied to the Union in the form requested, there was still no flexibility demonstrated by the Union. From this factual pattern, Respondents seek, first, to show the im- materiality of the requested information in light of the hidden agenda of the Union; second, that an impasse in bargaining actually was in existence in August; and third, that, even if the August implementations were improper, they were cured by their subsequent reimplementations in November 1982 and March 1983 at which time an im- passe surely existed. Counsel for the General Counsel both at the hearing and on brief opposed the consideration of postimplemen- tation bargaining evidence. She argued that post-August 1982 events are irrelevant to the issue of an August 1982 violation-the only violation alleged in the complaint She also argued that, even if the post-August events are to be considered relevant to remedy there are two sepa- rate, independent reasons for rejecting them at an initial unfair labor practice hearing. First, she asserts the post- 3 Earls had previously pledged to review the requested data personally and not disclose it to others Dependable's letter specifically relied on this pledge in submitting the data for Earls' "eyes only " 4 The complaint does not allege a refusal to furnish information as an independent violation of the Act DEPENDABLE MAINTENANCE CO August evidence would only be relevant to the liquida- tion of the remedy and thus would be properly consid- ered only in the later compliance stage of the proceed- ings. Second, she argues that the post-August negotia- tions are irrelevant because, given the August illegal im- plementation , no legitimate impasse or untainted bargain- ing could thereafter occur unless and until the status quo ante has been restored by Respondents , i e., until the uni- lateral changes had been rescinded and previous benefits restored Thus, in the General Counsel's view, unless and until Respondents restore the pre-August working condi- tions, negotiations must remain tainted and no good-faith negotiations could take place or an impasse occur. 2. The propriety of the mid -August 1982 implementations of the last offers Counsel for the General Counsel has marshaled a host of cases in a scholarly presentation which easily estab- lished the following elements of her case, which ele- ments Respondents generally did not contest First, the information requested by the Union was relevant to its collective-bargaining negotiations with Respondents. Second, the information requested was not so confiden- tial that it could properly be withheld by Respondents from the Union under the circumstances present here, particularly where the Union agreed to keep the infor- mation confidential and severely limit its use . Third, unless and until an impasse had been reached in negotia- tions in August 1982, it was improper for Respondents to unilaterally implement their last offers. Respondents emphasize the conventional notion that unilateral changes are permissible if they involve the im- plementation of a last offer during a bargaining impasse. Respondents strongly argue there was such an impasse in mid-August . This argument is based on the proposition that the information requests of the Union were but sham and subterfuge to delay negotiations and prevent Re- spondents from implementing their last offer. Thus, the requested information was irrelevant to the impasse issue. Respondents advance the view that the Union was bound by the most-favored-nation clauses in its other contracts and therefore would accept from Respondents no less than what was contained in those contracts. In that light , any and all requests for information-and the concomitant refusal to provide, or the last-minute provi- sion of the information-are irrelevant to the true issues at the bargaining table or the existence of an impasse. , I have considered Respondents' contentions in light of the entire bargaining sequence and find there is simply insufficient evidence to convince me that, as of mid- August 1982, the Union was not entitled to the informa- tion it sought prior to making its economic proposals at least for a period longer than that provided by each Re- spondent before the implementation of its final offer. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that the Union's requests as of mid-August were not sincere or were interjected solely for delay I make this finding even given the lack of movement in later negotiations after the information had been supplied . Respondents simply acted too quickly in implementing the last offer to place their theory of the Union 's bargaining rigidity to the test The delivery of the requested information was 219 followed essentially without delay by the implementation of the final offers Thus it is impossible to determine if the information would in fact have been used by the Union to modify its position This uncertainty must be resolved against Respondents whose precipitous actions created uncertainty The lack of changes in the Union's position in bargaining after the imposition of the unilater- al change does not change this finding. This is so be- cause the postimplementation bargaining took place in the context of the implementation and the Union's pro- test of it. Thus the later bargaining , even disregarding the post facto aspects of the evidence, cannot be held to be a fair indicium of preimplementation union motiva- tions. Since the implementation was made at a time when the Union could still be fairly considering its proposals on economic items in a new contract , there is no doubt and I find that the last offers were implemented, in each case, before there was an impasse in bargaining. I find therefore that each Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by making the August changes in unit employees' working conditions THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall order each to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act including the posting of remedial notices. Because employees work in many fa- cilities not under the control of Respondents and do not work at the Respondents ' offices, I shall also require each Respondent to mail to its unit employees copies of the appropriate notice Respondents contend on brief "[i]n the event Respond- ents are found to have too hastily implemented their offers in August, that was remedied by the reimplemen- tation in November 1982 and again in March 1983" at which time the parties were clearly at impasse . Thus no restoration of the status quo ante, or indeed any remedy other than a notice, is appropriate in Respondents' view. The General Counsel contends that after a wrongful uni- lateral change by an employer there must be a return to the status quo ante before subsequent negotiations may be held ripen to impasse absent an agreement . Since it is undisputed that no agreement has been reached between any Respondent and the Union or that any Respondent has restored the working conditions changed in August 1982, the General Counsel argues that later bargaining could not change or diminish a normal status quo ante order While the cases are not free from difficulty in this area, I am persuaded by Respondents' cited case, NLRB v. Cauthorne Trucking, 691 F.2d 1023 (D.C. Cir. 1982), that a restoration of the status quo ante is not a necessary prerequisite to a subsequent bargaining impasse in all sit- uations . I find therefore that an examination of the post- August 1982 bargaining would be appropriate to deter- mine if a subsequent impasse occurred as contended by Respondents if an unconditional remedial order requiring a restoration of status quo ante to date were at issue. The General Counsel argues further however that such post-August 1982 events and their consideration as 220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to remedy must be deferred to the compliance stage of these proceedings and, if necessary, at a second hearing on the issue of remedy Thus, counsel for the General Counsel argues on brief. Even if Respondents' argument that an impasse occurred in negotiations after Respondents' unilater- al implementation is assumed to be true, and Re- spondents properly implemented their offers at some later time, the argument would have rel- evance only to the issue of the calculation of reme- dial backpay or benefits, not to the issue of whether Respondents implemented their offers when there was no impasse. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 Respondent, and each of them, are employers en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2 The Union is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act 3. At all times material herein, the Union has been and is now the exclusive bargaining representative of Re- spondents' employees in the following described single employer units which are appropriate within the mean- ing of Section 9 of the Act All employees engaged in the work classifications of janitor, traveling waxer/shampooer and foreper- son The Board has traditionally acquiesced in the General Counsel's desire to limit initial unfair labor practice liti- gation to the consideration of the existence of a violation and to address the effect of post-unfair labor practice events on the ordered remedy in a second hearing as necessary The United States Courts of Appeals have en- forced such Board decisions. See, e.g., NLRB v. Plumb- ers Local 403 (Pullman Power), 710 F.2d 1418 (9th Cir. 1983), enfg. 261 NLRB 257 (1982), NLRB v. Trident Sea- foods Corp., 642 F.2d 1148 (9th Cir. 1981), enfg. 244 NLRB 566 (1979) 1 shall therefore not consider the issue of whether or not there was a post-August bargaining impasse or the propriety of the November 1982 or March 1983 reimplementation of the last offer. Nor shall I consider their possible effects on the status quo ante remedy ordered herein. I shall order Respondents to re- store the status quo ante to maintain that status until Re- spondents negotiate in good faith with the Union to a new agreement or bargain to an impasse. I do not decide here if such an impasse has already been reached. In the event there is a continuing dispute regarding when or if an impasse existed and the consequences of that fact on the remedy ordered herein, that dispute will be resolved in the compliance stage of this proceeding. Thus, the remedy issues raised by Respondents turning on post- August 1982 events are reserved for a later date. The status quo ante order requires restoration of all terms and conditions of unit employees discontinued in August 1982 including wages and benefits as well as fringe benefit trust payments Interest on payments to employees shall accrue interest as set forth in Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977). See also Isis Plumbing Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962). Interest and other special make-whole requirements with respect to the contractual fringe agreements shall be determined in accordance with Merryweather Optical Co., 240 NLRB 1213 (1979). The General Counsel also seeks an order requiring Re- spondents to timely furnish relevant information if re- quested by the Union in bargaining. Inasmuch as the complaint did not allege any failure to timely supply in- formation to the Union, I decline to include such a remedy in the order On these findings of fact and the entire record, I make the following 4 On or about August 10, 1982, Respondent Dependa- ble unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of em- ployees in its single employer bargaining unit decribed above at a time when no impasse had occurred in bar- gaining with the Union thereby violating Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 5 On or about August 13, 1982, Respondent Metro- politan unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of employees in its single employer bargaining unit de- scribed above at a time when no impasse had occurred in bargaining with the Union thereby violating Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 6 On or about August 13, 1982, Respondent Quality unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of employ- ees in its single employer bargaining unit described above at a time when no impasse had occurred in bar- gaining with the Union thereby violating Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 7 The unfair labor practices described above in para- graphs 4, 5, and 6 are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed5 ORDER The Respondents, Dependable Building Maintenance Company, Quality Building Maintenance Company and Metropolitan Building Maintenance Company, their offi- cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Unilaterally changing unit employees' terms and conditions of employment during bargaining with the Union at a time when the parties have not reached an impasse or a new agreement. (b) In any like or related manner violating the provi- sions of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which is nec- essary to effectuate the policies of the Act. 5 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations , the findings , conclusions, and recommended 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 pur- poses DEPENDABLE MAINTENANCE CO (a) Restore unit employees' terms and conditions of employment to the level in existence before the August 1982 changes and continue them in effect unless or until a new agreement is reached with the Union or an im- passe is reached in bargaining. (b) Make employees whole for the losses they incurred as a result of the August 1982 unilateral changes in working conditions including appropriate fringe trusts, with appropriate interest as described in the section of this decision entitled "The Remedy." (c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay- roll records, social security payment records , timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records nec- essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order (d) Post at its facility copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix A, B, or C" as appropriate for each Respondents Copies of the notice , on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 19, after being signed by its authorized representative , shall be posted immedi- ately upon receipt thereof and maintained for a period of 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material Further, copies of the appropriate notice shall be mailed to all unit employees (e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what Respondents have done to comply 6 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 Na- tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation- al Labor Relations Board " 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 ordered us to post and abide by this notice. Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights To organize To form, join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through representatives of their own choice To act together for other mutual aid or protec- tion To choose not to engage in any of these protect- ed concerted activities. The Service Employees International Union, Local No 6 represents our employees in the following bargain- ing unit- 221 All employees engaged in the work classifications of janitor, traveling waxer/shampooer and foreper- son. WE WILL NOT unilaterally change unit employees' terms and conditions of employment during bargaining with the Union at a time when the parties have not reached an impasse in bargaining. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner violate the terms of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL make unit employees whole for the losses they incurred as a result of the unilateral changes in working conditions we made in August 1982, including appropriate fringe trust contributions , and WE WILL pay appropriate interest as described in the judge's decision WE WILL restore unit employees terms and conditions to the level before the August 1982 changes and we will continue those terms in force and effect until an agree- ment is reached with the Union or an impasse is reached in bargaining. DEPENDABLE BUILDING MAINTENANCE COMPANY 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 ordered us to post and abide by this notice. Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights. To organize To form, join , or assist any union To bargain collectively through representatives of their own choice To act together for other mutual aid or protec- tion To choose not to engage in any of these protect- ed concerted activities The Service Employees International Union, Local No. 6 represents our employees in the following bargain- ing unit. All employees engaged in the work classifications of janitor, traveling waxer/shampooer and foreper- son. WE WILL NOT unilaterally change unit employees' terms and conditions of employment during bargaining with the Union at a time when the parties have not reached an impasse in bargaining. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner violate the terms of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL make unit employees whole for the losses they incurred as a result of the unilateral changes in working conditions we made in August 1982, including 222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD appropriate fringe trust contributions, and WE WILL pay appropriate interest as described in the judge's decision. WE WILL restore unit employees terms and conditions to the level before the August 1982 changes and we will continue those terms in force and effect until an agree- ment is reached with the Union or an impasse is reached in bargaining. QUALITY BUILDING MAINTENANCE COM- PANY APPENDIX C 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 ordered us to post and abide by this notice. Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights. To organize To form, .join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through representatives of their own choice To act together for other mutual aid or protec- tion To choose not to engage in any of these protect- ed concerted activities The Service Employees International Union, Local No. 6 represents our employees in the following bargain- ing unit: All employees engaged in the work classifications of janitor, traveling waxer/shampooer and foreper- son WE WILL NOT unilaterally change unit employees' terms and conditions of employment during bargaining with the Union at a time when the parties have not reached an impasse in bargaining. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner violate the terms of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL make unit employees whole for the losses they incurred as a result of the unilateral changes in working conditions we made in August 1982, including appropriate fringe trust contributions, and WE WILL pay appropriate interest as described in the judge's decision. WE WILL restore unit employees terms and conditions to the level before the August 1982 changes and we will continue those terms in force and effect until an agree- ment is reached with the Union or an impasse is reached in bargaining. METROPOLITAN BUILDING MAINTENANCE COMPANY