Athey Products Corp.

ATHEY PRODUCTS CORP. 203 Dolman Division of Athey Products-Corporation ttnd Allied Industrial Workers of America, AFL- CIO. Case 18-CA-9609 20 November 1986 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND BABSON On 19 August 1986 Administrative Law Judge Leonard M. Wagman issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. ' The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions' and brief and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Kolman Di- vision of Athey Products Corporation, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order. The hearing in this case was held on 23 June at Sioux Falls, South Dakota. On the entire record in this case, and from my observation of the demeanor of the wit- nesses, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT- I. JURISDICTION Respondent, a South Dakota corporation, with an office and place of business at Sioux Falls, South Dakota, engages in the manufacture, nonretail sale, and distribu- tion of heavy-duty loading and hauling equipment and related products. During the 12 months ending 31 De- cember 1985, Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business, sold and shipped from its Sioux Falls facility products, goods, and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside of South Dakota. During the same period, Respondent also received at its Sioux Falls facility products, goods, and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside of South Dakota. Respondent admitted from the foregoing data that it is, and has been, at all times material to this case, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and I so find. Re- spondent also admitted, and I find, that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE A. Alleged Unilateral Changes in the Employees' Insurance, Coverage i The Respondent has excepted only to the judge's finding that it made unilateral changes in the health insurance coverage of unit employees in violation of Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Richard C. Auslander, Esq., for the General Counsel. John E. Burke, Esq., of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, for the Respondent. Harry H. Smith, Esq., of Sioux City, Iowa, for the Charging Party. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE LEONARD M. WAGMAN, Administrative Law Judge. On a charge filed on 27 March 1986,1 by Allied Industri- al Workers of America, AFL-CIO, the Regional Direc- tor for Region 18, issued a complaint and notice of hear- ing on 7 May against Kolman Division of Athey Prod- ucts Corporation (Respondent). The complaint alleged that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor' Relations Act, 28 U.S.G. § 151 et seq. (the Act), by unilaterally changing the insurance cover- age of employees represented by Allied Industrial Work- ers of America, Local No. 470, AFL-CIO (the Union) by refusing to process grievances filed by the Union, and by refusing to select an arbitrator. Respondent, by its answer to the complaint, denied commission of the al- leged unfair labor practices. i Unless otherwise stated, all dates occurred in 1986. 1. Facts On 7 October 1965 the National Labor Relations Board certified the Union as the exclusive collective-bar- gaining representative of Respondent's employees in the following unit that the Board found appropriate for pur- poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- tion 9(b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees em- ployed at [Respondent's] Sioux Falls, South Dakota facility; excluding inspectors, lab technicians, engi- neers, office clerical employees, guards and supervi- sors as defined in the Act. Thereafter, Respondent and the Union entered into a succession of collective bargaining agreements covering the described unit. Their most recent collective-bargain- ing agreement is effective from 1 February 1985 until 31 January 1988. Section 2, article XX, of the current collective-bar- gaining agreement contains the following provision cov- ering insurance for bargaining unit employees: The Company agrees to freeze the cost of existing insurance paid by the employee at the lever of con- tract date through the life of this agreement. How- 2 The testimony in this case presented no issues of credibility. The es- sential facts were undisputed 282 NLRB No. 29 204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ever, if improvements are possible or changes can enhance or improve coverage by a change in insur- ance companies, etc., these possible changes will be reviewed by both the Company and the Union to determine acceptance of same. In this case the Company and the employees will share equally any increased cost involved. Under the contract immediately preceding the current collective-bargaining agreement the group health insur- ance carrier was Pilot Life Insurance Company. With the Union's approval, under the current contract, begin- ning 1 February 1985, Respondent changed the carrier to Protective Life Insurance Company. The coverage under both policies included medical care insurance for unit employees and their dependents. In mid-March, Re- spondent posted the following notice to employees, dated 7 March, regarding group health insurance: Our present group health insurance company, Protective Life Insurance Company, has just fur- nished us with an audit report of our insurance claims experience for the period 4-1-85/1-31-86. This claims experience has been such that the in- surance company is requesting -a 25% increase in premiums paid to them for employee and family health insurance coverage. Quite frankly, they have paid out more money in claims than they have col- lected from Athey. This is primarily due to a tre- mendous number of small to medium claims, not a lot of large claims. Athey, as always, has strived to keep rising costs contained and has accomplished near miracles in this area, noted by the fact that employees have not had an increase in rates in the last ten years, at the same time that the hospital insurance costs on most plans have skyrocketed. Thus, in order to again keep from increasing rates, we surveyed all alternatives with the insur- ance company, and we negotiated the following changes, which reduces the increase required by Protective, down to a much smaller percentage; which in this case will be absorbed by Athey. Comparison Old (Pilot) Present (Protective) New (Protective) Major medical deductible... $100 per person (max 2 $100 per $200 per person (max 2 per family) per family). person (max 2 per family). Out-of-pocket person/per None ..................................... $600 per $1000 $1000 per family** **When 1 person incurs out-of- expenses maximum person; pocket expenses over $ 1000, remaining 'family members (Stop Loss). $700 per will have covered expenses paid at 100% family. Pre-admission certification None ..................................... None ............. Before you are admitted to any hospital for other than (effective 5-1-86). emergency or child birth reasons, your doctor or his staff must get approval from the insurance company. Emergency/child birth admissions must be clear by 12 noon the next working day following admission. Second Surgical Option...... None ..................................... Required....... Not required after 5-1-86. The above noted corrections will become effec- tive April 1, 1986 except as noted. , Please be assured that these are modest changes by any standard and will certainly not reduce the quality of benefits in the job marketplace, since most employers have adopted these changes or ones more strict. New pocket I.D. cards will be issued by April 1, 1986; with new booklets being issued just as soon as possible thereafter. When I asked Respondent's expert witness, Richard Dougherty, general manager and supervisor of Mutual Of Omaha's insurance operations in South Dakota, if the foregoing changes were significant, he answered that they were "significant improvement because in the long run the employee is going to be much better off if they have larger claims, or if they get into serious condi- tions." Later, in response to questions by Respondent's counsel, Dougherty testified that the new coverage in April did not make substantial differences. He also agreed with Respondent's counsel that the changes were not significant differences. As Dougherty's responses to counsel were inconsistent with his answer to me, I have made my own assessment of the above changes in cover- age. The increases in the amounts of major medical ex- penses and out-of-pocket expenses that the unit employ- ees would bear after 1 April were measured in hundreds of dollars. I find such increases were likely to be signifi- cant in the eyes of the employees. I also find that such expenses would have a substantial impact on their finan- cial health. ATHEY PRODUCTS CORP. Respondent made the changes set forth in its notice to employees without obtaining the Union's acceptance and without complying with Section 8(d) of the Act.3 2. Analysis and conclusions It is well established that an employer violates Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act when it alters a contractual term covering a mandatory subject of bargaining during the effective period of a collective-bargaining agreement, without obtaining the approval of its employees' collec- tive-bargaining representative and without complying with Section 8(d) of the Act. Croft Metals, 272 NLRB 208, 213 (1985). Here, Respondent made significant changes in its em- ployees' insurance coverage that were reflected in the in- creased deductible and out-of-pocket expense amounts that the employees would bear, Respondent also imposed a restriction on hospital admission and eliminated the re- quirement for a second opinion for surgery. Taken to- gether, these unilateral changes in the existing insurance program were substantial and significant. In implement- ing them, Respondent ignored the contractual require- ment that it give the Union a chance to review and accept such changes in insurance benefits. Respondent, by this conduct, changed a contractual term concerning a mandatory subject of bargaining without the Union's consent and without complying with Section 8(d) of the Act. I find that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Chemical Workers Local 10 v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 404 U.S. 157, 159 (1971); Croft Metals, supra, 272 NLRB at 213. Assuming that Respondent's unilateral changes in the health insurance coverage of the unit employees, did not violate the insurance provision of the current collective- bargaining agreement, its conduct in this regard never- theless violated its statutory duty to bargain with the Union about a mandatory subject. For before making such changes, the Act requires that Respondent notify the Union and give it an opportunity to bargain about the proposed changes. I find, therefore, that by unilater- ally changing the employees' health insurance coverage Sec 8(d) of the Act provides in pertinent part: That where there is in effect a collective bargaining contract cover- ing employees in an industry affecting commerce, the duty to bar- gain collectively shall also mean that no party to such contract shall terminate or modify such contract unless the party desiring such ter- mmation or modification- (1) serves a written notice upon the other party to the contract of the proposed termination or modification sixty days prior to the ex- piration date thereof, or in the event such contract contains no expi- ration date, sixty days prior to the time it is proposed to make such termination or modification; (2) offers to meet and confer with the other party for the purpose of negotiating a new contract or a contract containing the proposed modifications; (3) notifies the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service within thirty days after such notice of the existence of a dispute, and simul- taneously therewith notifies any State or Territorial agency estab- lished to mediate and conciliate disputes within the State or Terri- tory where the dispute occurred, provided no agreement has been reached by that time; and (4) continues in full force and effect, without resorting to strike or lockout, all the terms and conditions of the existing contract for a period of sixty days after such notice is given or until the expiration date of such contract, whichever occurs later. 205 as- announced in the March , notice, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Wisconsin Southern Gas, 173 NLRB 480, 484 (1968). B. Refusal to Select an Arbitrator 1. Facts In November 1985 a dispute arose between the Re- spondent and the Union involving bargaining unit em- ployee Terry Lape. The Union_ claimed that Lape had assumed job duties that entitled him to a 10-cent hourly wage increase. When Respondent disputed this claim, the Union filed a grievance on his behalf. On 16 January, after the grievance had progressed to the third step of the grievance procedure as provided in article III,2,d, of the contract,4 the Union, with Re- spondent's consent, requested, in writing, an arbitration panel of five names from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service in Washington, D.C. Article IV of the contract, entitled "Arbitration," states that either party "may request the Federal Mediation and Concilia- tion Service [FMCS] to assist with the selection [of an arbitrator] by submitting a list of five (5) qualified arbi- trators." On 31 January FMCS sent a panel of five arbitrators to the Respondent's general manager, Don Blalock, and to the Union's regional representative, Stan Frank. Along with the panel, FMCS enclosed biographical sketches of each of five arbitrators. The sketches showed that three panel members had been union officials. Soon after receiving the panel, Frank attempted to obtain Blalock's agreement on a date for selection of an arbitrator. Blalock replied that he was upset with the panel and said that three of the arbitrators had union connections. Blalock also announced his intent to ask FMCS to either, replace the three former union officials or provide a new panel. On 21 February Blalock requested FMSC to withdraw the panel, or add new names, "so that the panel as finally composed for the selective process will contain no more than two former union business agents," FMCS, after learning that the Union did not concur in Blalock's re- quest, and on reviewing the current contract, finally re- jected Blalock's request on 24 April. In the meantime, on 24 March, the union's representa- tive, Stan Frank had again sought Blalock's agreement to the selection of an arbitrator. When Blalock pressed Frank on the panel issue, the union representative insist- ed on using the same panel received from FMCS. Frank also rejected Blalock's suggestion that each party choose an arbitrator and then arrive at the final selection by the flip of a coin. Instead, Frank insisted on the following procedure set out in article IV of the contract: 4 Art. III,2,d, reads as follows: If the grievance is not satisfactorily settled in the second step, it shall be submitted to a committee composed of the plant superin- tendent, Company representative, the steward, the president and the business agent of the Union, or, someone representing him. In the event an amicable agreement shall not be reached between these four parties within three (3) working days after the submission of the grievance to them, the grievance may be appealed to arbitration as provided in Article IV. 206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Each party shall alternately strike a name from the list of proposed arbitrators until one name remains who shall be the arbitrator. Blalock rejected the contractual procedure. To date, the parties have not chosen an arbitrator. 2. Analysis and conclusions The General Counsel urges that Respondent violated its statutory obligation to bargain in good faith by block- ing the implementation of the contractual arbitration pro- vision. In its brief, Respondent concedes that it has re- fused to select an arbitrator. Respondent argues in sub- stance, however, that I should excuse its conduct be- cause the FMCS panel included a majority biased and prejudiced against it by earlier connections with unions. I find no merit in Respondent's attempt to legitimize its conduct and agree with the General Counsel's position. I find that Respondent's conduct was nothing less than a unilateral modification of a contractual obligation in midterm, which violated Sections 8(d) and 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Independent Stave Co., 248 NLRB 219, 228 (1980). Respondent's suggestion that the backgrounds of three of five panel members preclude it from getting a fair hearing is unsupported by evidence that any of the three has shown bias or prejudice against Respondent or employers in general. The fact that three proposed arbi- trators have been at some time in their careers union offi- cials, standing alone, does not excuse Respondent's refus- al to comply with the collective-bargaining agreement. C. Refusal to Process Grievances 1. Facts On 30 September 1985 employee Clarence Crarnton, who was the Union's president, suffered an injury that prevented him from working. At the time of the hearing, Cramton had not yet returned to work. Due to Cram- ton's injury, the Union's,vice president, Darell Ihnen, as- sumed the duties of president as authorized by 202 of the Union's constitution and laws governing local unions.5 The Union did not formally notify Respondent that Ihnen had become its acting president. Ihnen remained acting president through the remainder of 1985 and up to the day of the hearing in this case. On assuming the acting presidency in October 1985, Ihnen carried out the usual duties of that office at Re- spondent's plant. Ihnen joined with Respondent's plant superintendent, Gordon Lovell, in signing overtime lists and in considering job postings. Ihnen, as acting presi- dent, also attended meetings with management concern- ing reprimands for tardy employees and discussed with Superintendent Lovell a proposal for penalizing habitual offenders. Par. 29.02 states. Vice-President 29.02 The Vice-President shall assist the President in the discharge of his or her duties, and shall perform the duties of the President in his or her absence , death, incapacity or resignation from office On 27 March Ihnen and Steward Phil Tuley attempted unsuccessfully to file five grievances at Respondent's plant with Foreman Jim Wold. Foreman Wold referred Ihnen and Tuley to Superintendent Lovell, who refused to accept their grievances because the Union's president was not present. A memorandum from Superintendent Lovell, which Ihnen received on 27 March, gave as reason for Re- spondent's refusal to process the grievances "the failure of the Union to follow the Correct Grievance Procedure (as defined on page 2, Article III, item #2 of the Union Contract)."s In the second paragraph of his memoran- dum, Superintendent Lovell made clear the Respondent's rejection of Ihnen as "President of the Union" within the meaning of the contractual grievance procedure. He de- clared: KOLMAN DIVISION/ATHEY PRODUCTS CORPORATION will cooperate in a meeting be- tween the employees, Stewards, and Union Presi- dent as prescribed by the contract with the Shop Superintendent and/or General Manager at a time agreeable to all [sic] Concerned. Thank You. In June Respondent agreed to discuss the five griev- ances at the first step of the contractual grievance proce- dure. After the discussion, the parties had resolved three of the five grievances. Respondent accepted the two re- maining and has answered them. The record ' did not dis- close further information on the processing of these two grievances. On 16 April Acting President Ihnen and Steward Gary Wossner attempted unsuccessfully to file a griev- ance regarding Respondent's unilateral changes in the employees' health insurance coverage. Superintendent Lovell refused to accept the grievance. Lovell contended that under the contract, the Union's president was a nec- essary party to the filing of the grievance, and Ihnen, as vice president, did not qualify. The parties, have not processed this grievance. 6 The portions of the contract to which Lovell referred are as follows. ARTICLE III 2. Any grievance which arises shall be processed through the fol- lowing procedure- a. Any dispute will be brought to the attention of the departmental foreman by one of the grieved employees and the Steward and Presi- dent of the Union. b. If the dispute is not immediately settled satisfactorily by the de- partment foreman, the dispute will be reduced to writing and be brought to the attention of the plant superintendent or plant manager by the Steward and President of the Union. c The superintendent or plant manager must give his answer within two (2) working days following the working day in which the grievance was brought to his attention. d. If the grievance is not satisfactorily settled in the second step, it shall be submitted to a committee composed of the plant superin- tendent, Company representative, the steward, the president and the business agent of the Union, or someone representing him In the event an amicable agreement shall not be reached between these four parties within three (3) working days after the submission of the grievance to them, the grievance may be appealed to arbitration as provided in Article IV. ATHEY PRODUCTS CORP. 207 2. Analysis and conclusions The General Counsel contends that Respondent unilat- erally altered the contractual grievance procedure when it refused to process grievances that the Union presented on 27 March and on 16 April. Respondent denies that its response to the Union's attempts to process' grievances on those occasions ran afoul of the Act. For the follow- ing reasons, I agree with the General Counsel's conten- tion. It is well settled that unilateral action by an employer, which substantially changes a contractual grievance pro- cedure, derogates the collective-bargaining representa- tive's status and thus violates Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Motoresearch Co., 138 NLRB 1490, 1492 (1962). Here, Respondent attempted unilaterally to rewrite the contractual grievance procedure to bar the Union's acting president from participation. Further, in its brief, Respondent sought unilaterally to amend that provision further to require the Union to notify it of changes in the office, of president. As I read the contractual grievance- procedure, Re- spondent has no authority to challenge the incumbency off the Union's president for purposes of processing griev- ances. Thus, when Darrel Ihnen became acting president under the Union's constitution and bylaws, Respondent was obliged to treat him as "President of the Union" for purposes of the contractual grievance procedure. Similarly, the collective-bargaining agreement did not permit Respondent to insist on notice of Ihnen's acting presidency as a 'condition precedent to its contractual ob- ligation to process grievances. In sum, I find that Respondent's refusal to process grievances on the ground that Darrel Ihnen was not "President of the Union" was an attempt to make a uni- lateral and significant change in the contract's grievance procedure. I further find, therefore, that by this conduct, Respondent violated Sections 8(d) and 8(a)(5) of the Act. I find no merit in Respondent's further objection that the grievances that 'the Union presented on 27 March and 16 April were not in proper written form. I find that Respondent waived this objection when it neglected to raise it either on 27 March or on 16 April or in Superin- tendent Lovell's memorandum. Instead, Respondent first suggested ' it at the hearing before me. Thus, I find that this objection was an afterthought that played no part in Respondent's unlawful conduct. In any event, I find that all the grievances, which the Respondent presented on those dates, were in written form ' as the contract, re- quired. priate' for` the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees em- ployed at its Sioux Falls, South Dakota, facility; ex- cluding inspectors, lab technicians, engineers, office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as de- fined in the Act. 4. By unilaterally, and without the Union's consent, re- pudiating the collective-bargaining agreement as it per- tains to group health insurance coverage, the grievance procedure, and the selection of an arbitrator, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has committed certain unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it be or- dered to cease and desist from such conduct and take such affirmative action as I find necessary to remedy the effects of the unfair labor practices and to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent unilaterally made changes in its employees' group health insurance as an- nounced in its notice to employees dated 7 March 1986, I will order that Respondent, on the Union's request, re- scind the changes set forth in that announcement and re- imburse those employees who were required to pay de- ductible medical expenses, or other out-of-pocket ex- penses under those changes. Interest on all such reim- bursements will be computed in the manner prescribed in Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).' Having found that Respondent has failed and refused to comply with the 1985 collective-bargaining agreement's provi- sion regarding selection of an arbitrator, I will order that Respondent select an arbitrator in accordance with that provision. Further, having, found that Respondent has failed and refused to comply with the grievance proce- dure set forth in the 1988 collective-bargaining agree- ment, I will order that Respondent, on the Union's re- quest, comply with those provisions and process griev- ances with Acting President Darrel Ihnen, or any other individual, who the Union has designated as its president or acting president. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed" ORDER CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent, Koffman Division of Athey Prod- ucts Corporation, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union, Allied Industrial Workers of America, Local No. 470, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. At all times material, the Union has been and con- tinues to be the exclusive representative of Respondent's employees in the following bargaining unit found appro- The Respondent, Koffman Division of Athey Products Corporation, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from 7 See Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682, 683 (1970); and see gener- ally Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962) 8 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. 208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD (a) Refusing to bargain in good faith with Allied In- dustrial Workers of America, Local No. 470, AFL-CIO, by: (1) repudiating and refusing to comply with the arbi- trator selection provision of its current collective-bar- gaining agreement with Local 470; (2) failing and refus- ing to comply with the grievance procedure of its cur- rent collective-bargaining agreement with Local 470; and (3) unilaterally changing provisions of the group health insurance plan covering the employees who are repre- sented by Local 470 in the following unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees em- ployed at Respondent's Sioux Falls, South Dakota facility; excluding inspectors, lab technicians, engi- neers, office clerical employees, guards and supervi- sors as defined in the Act. (b)' In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Bargain in good faith with Local 470 by complying with the arbitrator selection provision and the grievance procedure provision of its 1985 collective-bargaining agreement with Local 470. (b) At Local 470's request, rescind the unilateral changes made in the group health program and which were announced in the notice to employees dated 7 March 1986. (c) Reimburse employees for out-of-pocket payments and deductible health care costs that they were required to pay as a result of the unilateral changes in the group health insurance program, as announced in the notice to employees dated 7 March 1986, with interest. (d) Post at its place of business in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- dix."9 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 18, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are cus- tomarily 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 Re- spondent has taken to comply. For the purpose of deter- mining or securing compliance with this Order, the Board or any of its duly authorized representatives may obtain discovery from the Respondent, its officers, agents,, successors, or assigns, or any other person having knowledge concerning any compliance matter, in the manner provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Proce- 9 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 Nation- al 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 " dure. Such discovery will be conducted under the super- vision of the United States court of appeals enforcing this Order that may be had on any matter reasonably re- lated to compliance with this Order, as enforced by the court. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or- dered 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. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain in good faith with Allied Industrial Workers of America, Local 470, AFL- CIO, by: (a) Repudiating and refusing to comply with the arbitrator selection provision of our current collec- tive-bargaining agreement with Local 470; (b) failing and refusing to comply with the grievance procedure set forth in our current collective-bargaining agreement with Local 470; and (c) unilaterally changing health insurance coverage of our employees who are represented by Local 470 in the following appropriate unit: All production and maintenance employees em- ployed at our Sioux Falls, South Dakota, facility; excluding inspectors, lab technicians, engineers, office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL, at the request of Local 470, rescind the uni- lateral changes we made in the coverage or other terms and conditions of the group health insurance program covering our employees in the collective-bargaining unit, and that we announced by a notice to employees dated 7 March 1986. WE WILL Comply with the arbitrator selection provi- sion of our current collective-bargaining agreement with Local 470. WE WILL, on request of Local 470, process grievances in accordance with the grievance procedure set forth in our current collective-bargaining agreement. WE WILL make whole our employees for their ex- penses growing out of the unilateral changes we made in the employees' group health insurance coverage by rais- ing the major medical deductible amount and the maxi- ATHEY PRODUCTS CORP. 209 mum out-of-pocket expense unilaterally in our announce- ment dated 7 March 1986, plus interest. KOLMAN DIVISION OF ATHEY PRODUCTS CORPORATION