Washington Stair And Iron Works, Inc.

566 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Washington Stair and Iron Works, Inc. and Interna- tional Association of Bridge , Structural and Or- namental Ironworkers, Shopmen's Local Union No. 486, AFL-CIO. Cases 5-CA-17034 and 5- CA- 17269 31 August 1987 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND BABSON On 4 November 1986 Administrative Law Judge James J. O'Meara issued the attached decision. The General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed cross-exceptions, a supporting brief, and a brief in response to the General Counsel's exceptions. 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 briefs i and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,2 and conclusions only to the extent consistent with this Decision and Order. 1. THE COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING CONTRACT3 The most recent collective-bargaining agreement between the Respondent and the Union expired on I The Respondent has requested oral argument The request is denied as the record, exceptions, and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties The Respondent has attempted to renew its motion made in its post- hearing brief that, pursuant to Sec, 102 37 of the Board's Rules and Regu- lations, the judge be disqualified Although acknowledging the judge ex- pressed no outward bias, the Respondent contends the judge made sever- al ill-considered and premature rulings that had the effect of denying the Respondent its right to a fair trial At the outset we note that this motion was untimely raised inasmuch as the Respondent failed to comply with the procedural constraints of Sec 102 37 of the Board's Rule's and Regulations Sec 102 37 requires that any party wishing to request a judge to withdraw from a case must do so before the filing of his decision by filing with the judge promptly on the discovery of the alleged facts, "a timely affidavit setting forth in detail the matters alleged to constitute grounds for disqualification " The Re- spondent did not file such an affidavit and raised the issue for the first time in its brief to the judge Moreover, the record is devoid of evidence that the judge prejudged the case, but is replete with evidence that the Respondent continued its attempt to relitigate the issue of whether the 15 November 1984 settlement agreement constituted a contract The judge based his rulings on the previous finding by the Board that the settlement agreement constituted a contract We therefore find no merit in the Re- spondent's contention that the judge prejudged this case Accordingly, we find no basis on which to disqualify the judge 2 The General Counsel excepts, inter alia, to the judge's failure to seg- regate from the transcript of the hearing the matters introduced by the Respondent as an "offer of proof" We find no merit in this exception as the failure to segregate the offer of proof does not constitute prejudicial error The judge inadvertently stated that the attempt to rescind the agree- ment violated "Section 8(a)(1) and 8(a)" when it is clear in context that he meant to find that the Respondent violated "Section 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(5) " 3 The facts set forth in this portion of the decision are based on uncon- troverted testimony in the record 30 September 1983. The parties negotiated for a new contract through the latter part of 1983, but failed to reach an agreement. On 15 November 1984, however, the parties signed a settlement agreement which, inter alia, incorporated by refer- ence their most recently expired agreement and set forth the changes and modifications to that agree- ment agreed on by the parties. At the end of December 1984 the Union pre- pared a written contract that incorporated in final form the provisions of the 15 November agreement and delivered the written contract to the Respond- ent for signature. The Respondent refused to sign the written contract. The judge noted that in Case 5-RD-874 the Board found the 15 November settlement agree- ment to be a valid and binding collective-bargain- ing agreement. The judge, however, found that the Respondent, having signed this agreement, was not also obligated to sign the December 1984 written contract. Contrary to the judge, we find that the Respond- ent's refusal to execute the December 1984 written contract violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1). Section 8(d) imposes on either party to a collective-bar- gaining agreement the duty to execute a written contract incorporating in one document the provi- sions agreed to, if so requested, by the other party.4 In December 1984 the Union simply re- quested that the Respondent satisfy this 8(d) obliga- tion. The Respondent refused. In refusing the Union's request, the Respondent failed to comply with the duty imposed on it by Section 8(d) and thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1).5 II. ALLEGED CHANGE IN ACCESS POLICY The complaint alleges that the Respondent vio- lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by promulgating a policy that forbids union agents access to its facili- ty, contrary to section 22 of its collective-bargain- ing agreement. Relying solely on the text of section 22 the judge found the violation after having con- cluded that the alleged policy change was a rule contrary to this section of the collective-bargaining agreement. For reasons set out below, we find that the evidence presented by the General Counsel is insufficient to establish that the Respondent's con- duct violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. The record indicates that, after the expiration of its collective-bargaining agreement on 30 Septem- ber 1983, the Respondent ceased deducting union dues from its employees' paychecks. After the par- 4 Kennebec Beverage Co, 248 NLRB 1298 (1980), see generally Cloth- ing Workers v NLRB, 324 F 2d 228 (2d Cir 1963) 5 Diplomat Envelope Corp, 263 NLRB 525, 540-541 (1982) 285 NLRB No. 70 WASHINGTON STAIR & IRON WOR:{S ties entered into the 15 November 1984 settlement agreement, which reinstituted the union-security clause, the union president, business agent, financial secretary, and treasurer, Ray E. Owens Jr., notified the Respondent's general manager, Richard Tacik, that he would be making plant visitations. On 4 January 1985 Owens visited the Respondent's plant and informed Werner Umlandt, the plant manager, that he was there to meet with the employees during their lunchbreak to get them to fill out union membership applications and union dues- checkoff authorizations. Umlandt consented. Owens testified that on 25 January 1985 he re- turned to the plant in an effort to reach those em- ployees who were not present during his earlier visit and to ask any of the employees if they had any problems that they would like to discuss. He stopped at the office and told Umlandt that he was there "to meet and visit with the employees," to which Umlandt responded, "No, you cannot meet with the employees any more, [you will] have to call them to the union hall. [You will] not be al- lowed on the premises to meet with the employ- ees." Owens left the plant without further discus- sion and without speaking to any of the employees. Armond Garcia, one of the Respondent's em- ployees and another General Counsel witness, testi- fied with the aid of an interpreter that, at the em- ployee meeting held during the afternoon of 25 January, Umlandt told the assembled employees that "there would be no further representations of the Union in the cafeteria while the affair of the contracts was not settled."6 Garcia also testified that in the past union representatives had not met with the employees in the company cafeteria, but would come in and leave bulletins on the board to notify employees of matters pertaining to the Com- pany. Section 22 of the collective-bargaining agree- ment states: An authorized representative of the Union shall be permitted to visit the office of the Company at all reasonable hours and after no- tifying a representative of the Company, desig- nated by it for such purpose, will be permitted to visit the Company's shop during working hours to investigate any matter covered by this agree- ment, but he shall in no way interfere with the progress of the work. [Emphasis added.] 6 With respect to the 25 January meeting , Umlandt testified that "I told everybody at this meeting that as for signing up and the union busi- ness that was going on for the last couple of weeks that caused interrup- tions in production and all the rest of it, that I would not allow any more mass meetings in the lunchroom and that these interruptions the way we had them before are going to be eliminated no matter what I had to do, and that if Roy Owens operates like he does then he will not be allowed to come back to the plant " 567 Relying solely on the text of section 22, the judge found the violation after having concluded that the alleged policy change was a rule contrary to this section of the collective-bargaining agreement. In our view, section 22 of the collective-bargain- ing agreement limits union visits to investigations of matters arising from the collective-bargaining agreement. Owens' attempt to gain signatures on membership or checkoff forms, the acknowledged reason for his visit to the company plant on 25 Jan- uary, does not qualify as an "investigation." Ac- cordingly, we find that by denying Owens permis- sion to meet with the employees on 25 January 1985, the Respondent did not, contrary to section 22 of the collective-bargaining agreement, promul- gate a policy forbidding access to the Respondent's facility. Accordingly, we dismiss this allegation of the complaint.7 AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW" 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 4. "4. The Respondent bypassed the Union and dealt directly with its employees in the unit by promising and then granting them a wage increase and thus violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act." 2. Substitute the following for paragraphs 5 and 6. "5. The Respondent rescinded the settlement agreement of 15 November 1984 and thus violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. "6. The Respondent refused to execute the col- lective-bargaining agreement prepared pursuant to the 15 November 1984 settlement agreement be- tween the Respondent and the Union and thus vio- lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act." AMENDED REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall require that the Respondent cease and desist from its unfair labor practices and that it take affirmative action ' Member Babson would adopt the judge's conclusion that the Re- spondent violated Sec 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by promulgating a policy forbidding the Union access to its facility Member Babson finds his colleagues ' reading of sec 22 of the parties' collective-bargaining agreement is unduly restrictive and inconsistent with the Respondent's practice Moreover, it appears from a literal reading of the Respondent's denial of access that the Union would be denied all access until the issue of the contracts was settled Chairman Dotson and Member Johansen , on the other hand, note that the record, as summarized above, is at best ambiguous as to the Respond- ent's practice with respect to union access to the plant Moreover, con- trary to Member Babson's characterization, the record evidence set forth above indicates that the Union would not be denied all access to the plant, but only such access that tended to interrupt production 8 The judge failed to include in his Conclusions of Law his findings regarding the Respondent's rescission of the November 1984 agreement and its direct dealing with employees 568 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD designed to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act. We have found that the Respondent and the Union reached an agreement with respect to the terms and conditions of employment for the em- ployees in the unit represented by International As- sociation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Shopmen's Local Union No. 486, AFL-CIO and that the Respondent has failed in its statutory duty to bargain collectively with the Union by refusing to execute the written contract incorporating the terms of their settlement agree- ment, by bypassing the Union and dealing directly with the unit employees, by unilaterally implement- ing a wage increase and, thereafter, by withdraw- ing recognition of the Union as its employees' ex- clusive representative. We will order the Respondent, on request, to execute the collective-bargaining agreement em- bodying the terms of the 15 November 1984 settle- ment agreement, to comply with all provisions thereof retroactive to 15 November 1984,9 and rec- ognize and, on request, bargain collectively with the Union, and to make whole all its employees for any losses they may have suffered as a result of the Respondent's failure to sign or to honor the written collective-bargaining agreement, with interest, in the manner set forth in Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), with interest to be computed in the manner prescribed in New Horizons for the Re- - tarded. 10 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Respondent, Washington Stair and Iron Works, Inc., Glen Burnie, Maryland, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to recognize and bargain with Inter- national Association of Bridge, Structural and Or- namental Ironworkers, Shopmen's Local Union No. 486, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees, in the bargaining 9 The General Counsel has requested that we find that the contract remains in effect because the agreement by its terms automatically renews unless either party gives notice of its desire to change or terminate the contract. We are ordering the Respondent to honor the terms of the con- tract We find it unnecessary at this stage of the proceeding to determine the precise effect of the various terms of that agreement. 10 Interest will be computed in accordance with our decision in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987) Interest on amounts accrued prior to 1 January 1987 (the effective date of the 1986 amend- ment to 26 U.S C § 6621) shall be computed in accordance with Florida Steel Corp, 231 NLRB 651 (1977). The General Counsel requests a visitatorial clause authorizing the Board, for compliance purposes, to obtain discovery from the Respond- ent under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under the supervision of the United States court of appeals enforcing this Order Under the cir- cumstances of the case, we find it unnecessary to include such a clause Accordingly, we deny the General Counsel 's request unit described below, with regard to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. (b) Rescinding the 15 November 1984 settlement agreement. (c) Failing and refusing to execute a written con- tract embodying the provisions agreed on by it and the Union. (d) Bypassing the Union and dealing directly with its unit employees. (e) Unilaterally implementing a wage increase without giving the Union ' notice and an opportuni- ty to bargain. (f) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action neces- sary to effectuate the policies the Act. (a) On request of International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Shopmen's Local Union No. 486, AFL-CIO, exe- cute the collective-bargaining agreement embody- ing the terms of the 15 November 1984 settlement agreement. (b) Retroactive to 15 November 1984, give effect to the terms and conditions of the collective-bar- gaining agreement embodying the terms of the 15 November 1984 settlement agreement and make whole its employees for any losses suffered by reason of the Respondent's failure to honor the col- lective-bargaining agreement. (c) Recognize and, on request, bargain collec- tively with International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Shop- men's Local Union No. 486, AFL-CIO as the ex- clusive representative of the employees in the fol- lowing appropriate unit on terms and conditions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody the understanding in a signed agreement: All production and maintenance employees en- gaged in the fabrication of iron, steel and metal products, or in maintenance work in or about the Respondent's plant, or plants located at 521 DiGiulian Boulevard, Glen Burnie, Maryland and vicinity, but, excluding all office clerical employees, draftsmen, engineering em- ployees, watchmen, guards, supervisors, and employees engaged in erection, installation or construction work. (d) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copy- ing, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to analyze the WASHINGTON STAIR & IRON WORKS 569 amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (e) Post at its facility in Glen Burnie, Maryland, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- dix."" Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 5, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representa- tive, shall be posted by the Respondent immediate- ly upon receipt 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, defaced, or covered by any other material. (f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply. i i 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 " APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government the collective-bargaining agreement embodying the terms of the 15 November 1984 settlement agree- ment and we will make whole our employees for any losses suffered by reason of our failure to honor the collective-bargaining agreement. WE WILL, on request of the Union, forthwith execute the written contract embodying the provi- sions agreed on by us and the Union. WE WILL recognize and, on request, bargain col- lectively with International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Shop- men's Local Union No. 486, AFL-CIO as the ex- clusive representative of employees in the follow- ing appropriate unit with regard to their wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employ- ment and, if an understanding is reached, embody the understanding in a signed agreement: All production and maintenance employees en- gaged in the fabrication of iron, steel, and metal products, or in maintenance work in or about the Employer's plant or plants located at 521 DiGiulian Boulevard, Glen Burnie, Mary- land and vicinity, but excluding all office cleri- cal employees, draftsmen, engineering employ- ees, watchmen, guards, supervisors, and em- ployees engaged in erection, installation or construction work. WASHINGTON STAIR AND IRON- WORKS, INC. 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. WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain with International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Shopmen's Local Union No. 486, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bar- gaining representative of our employees in the bar- gaining unit described below with regard to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employ- ment. WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to execute a writ- ten contract embodying the provisions agreed to by us and the Union. WE WILL NOT bypass the Union and deal direct- ly with our unit employees. WE WILL NOT unilaterally implement a wage in- crease without giving the Union notice or an op- portunity to bargain. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL give effect retroactive to 15 November 1984 to the terms and conditions of employment of Carol A. Baumerich, Esq., for the General Counsel. Gary L. Lieber, Esq., of Washington, D C., for the Re- spondent. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE JAMES J. O'MEARA, JR., Administrative Law Judge. Upon a charge filed on 15 February 1985 by Internation- al Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Shopmen's Local Union No 486, AFL- CIO (the Union) a complaint was issued in Case 5-CA- 17034 against Washington Stair and Iron Works, Inc. (Respondent) A second complaint, Case 5-CA-17269, based on a charge filed by the Union against Respondent on 20 May 1985, was ordered consolidated and was tried as a consolidated complaint. Each complaint alleged vio- lations by Respondent of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. The Respondent, in its answer, denied that it had vio- lated the Act, and affirmatively alleged that it had a good-faith doubt that the Union represented a majority of the employees in the previously established bargaining unit The cases were heard by me in the city of Washing- ton, D C. on 21 January 1986 and on 12, 13, and 26 March 1986. The parties were given an opportunity to 570 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD present evidence and argue their respective positions At the termination of the hearing, the parties waived oral agrument and filed briefs, which have been received and duly considered Based on the evidence of record , including the testi- mony and demeanor of the witnesses , and in consider- ation of briefs filed by the parties I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION The General Counsel has alleged , the Respondent has admitted, and I find that the Respondent is a Maryland corporation with place of business in Glen Burnie, Mary- land During the preceding 12-month period , which I find to be a representative period , the Respondent , in the course and conduct of its business operations , sold and shipped from its Glen Burnie, Maryland facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to customers located outside the State of Maryland. I find that the Respondent is now, and has been at all times material , an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. I further find that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case. If. THE UNION The Union is, and at all times material was , a labor or- ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III THE LIMITATION OF PROOF The Respondent has answered the complaint of the General Counsel by a denial of material allegations and the pleading of an affirmative defense The affirmative defense so pleaded alleges that the Respondent has a "good faith doubt that the union continued to represent a majority of the employees in the previously-established bargaining unit" and that the good -faith doubt privileged the employer from negotiating with the Union and per- mitted its withdrawal of recognition On motion of coun- sel for the General Counsel , it has ordered that the Re- spondent's newly discovered evidence would not be per- mitted to relitigate the issue of the validity of a collec- tive-bargaining agreement of 15 November 1984 between the parties. (Respondent contends no newly discovered evidence be available to this record.)' The existence and validity of a binding collective-bar- gaining agreement, which has been adjudicated by the Board in a previous preceeding , cannot be the subject matter of a here resolved legal issue. Therefore, the motion of the General Counsel is granted , the second de- ' The Regional Director's letter of 9 January 1985 , Board's Order in Case 5-RC-874 Counsel for the Respondent asked for leave to make an offer of proof, choosing to do so by the Q and A method This was granted, over the objection of counsel for the General Counsel, who argued that this method constituted a retrial of the validity of the collec- tive-bargaining agreement of 15 November 1984 The General Counsel applied for leave to appeal to the Board , which was allowed, and her appeal was upheld Respondent 's offer of proof was denied and the evi- dence relating to the validity of the execution of the collective-bargaining agreement was excluded fense of Resondent is dismissed, and the Respondent's offer of proof is denied IV THE COMPLAINT The complaint alleges that the Respondent has refused to execute a written contract embodying the settlement agreement of 15 November 1984 and including, by refer- ence, the written agreement under which the parties had operated . These documents comprise the signed settle- ment agreement together with the collective -bargaining agreement that was incorporated into the settlement agreement by reference . The two documents must be construed as one and considered as one The document labeled as the "Settlement Agreement" between the par- ties is dated November 15, 1984, and signed by the Union and the executive vice president and general man- ager of the Respondent It incorporates by reference the provisions of the collective -bargaining agreement be- tween the parties, which had immediately preceded it. It is this agreement that the Board has ruled to be a valid collective-bargaining agreement between the parties. The signing , by the Respondent's officer, of that document, which has been adjudicated to be a valid and binding collective-bargaining agreement between the parties, is compliance with the requirement of Section 8(d) that the agreement be reduced in writing on demand of either party . Therefore, the refusal to sign a second document does not constitute a violation of the Act and the Re- spondent has not violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act in its refusal to sign the presented agreement The complaint also alleges that the Respondent violat- ed Section 8(a)(5) by unilaterally rescinding the collec- tive-bargaining agreement of 15 November 1984 A de- certification petition was filed by the employees of Re- spondent The General Counsel argues, correctly, that the valid and binding collective -bargaining agreement is a "contract bar" to the decertification petition and any challenge to the union majority . Thus the unilateral reci- sion by Respondent on 13 December 1984 of the agree- ment is a violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. A further allegation contained in the complaint alleged that the Respondent dealt directly with the employees about a pay raise and informed them of a pending pay increase thus bypassing the Union, and also, about 1 Feb- ruary 1985, by implementing such increases, all without negotiating with the Union as the existing contract re- quired About 25 January 1985 Plant Manager Werner Um- landt held a meeting with employees. This was a meeting for Respondent's employees to go over general prob- lems. Umlandt announced at the meeting that the Re- spondent would give all employees a 3-percent wage in- crease to be effective 1 February 1985 This was not a merit raise because all received it and it was of the same amount to each employee This wage increase was like no prior increase given by the Company Its prior in- crease in wages was for "merit" allowed by the terms of the existing contract It is an across-the -board raise, which was given here without notice to the Union or op- portunity to bargain on the matter, and Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and ( 1) as well. WASHINGTON STAIR & IRON WORKS The complaint also alleges a violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) in that on or about 25 January 1985, con- trary to section 8(22) of the collective-bargaining agree- ment, Respondent promulgated a policy forbidding access by union agents to its facility. The collective-bar- gaining agreement provides as follows. An authorized representative of the union shall be permitted to visit the office of the company at all reasonable hours and after notifying a representative of the Company, designated by it for such purpose, will be permitted to visit the Company's shop during working hours to investigate any matter covered by this agreement, but it shall in no way interfere with the progress of the work. Previously it was determined that the collective-bar- gaining agreement is currently binding on the parties, therefore any rule of the Company to the contrary is a violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1). V DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The Respondent has raised the issue of the validity of the collective-bargaining agreement and its binding effect on the parties. The General Counsel correctly argues that, if valid, the collective-bargaining agreement be- tween the parties becomes a "contract bar" to any decer- tification petition or an attack on the union majority. The Board in "General Counsel's Request For Special Per- mission To Appeal" ruled the contract valid and bind- ing.2 The question of the validity of the collective-bargain- ing agreement is resolved by ruling of the Board. The resolution by the Board of this issue requires that the action of Respondent be evaluated and interpreted in consideration of the collective-bargaining agreement in effect at the time. The act of attempting to rescind the agreement, which the Board has ruled is valid, is, standing alone, a viola- tion of Section 8(a)(1) and (5). The validity of the agreement of 15 November 1984, characterized as a "settlement agreement" incorporated all unchanged provisions of the most recently expired collective-bargaining agreement, bore the uncontradicted signature of the executive manager and plant manager, and constituted full compliance with any demand for a 571 "written documentation ." Thus, paragraph 311 of the complaint is unproven, and shall be dismissed Dealing directly with the employees on matters cov- ered by a collective-bargaining agreement is a violation of Section 8(a)(5) and ( 1). Umlandt held a meeting with employees to discuss production at the plant . He told them about the pending increase in wages Subsequently an increase in wages was granted "across-the-board" at 3 percent Respondent's attempt to characterize this as a merit raise allowed by the collective-bargaining agree- ment was not compelling, and I find it was not a merit raise, but an unplanned raise, a matter about which the Union was entitled to notice and to an opportunity to ne- gotiate The direct dealing with the employees on this subject is a violation of Section 8(a)(5) and ( 1) of the Act The collective-bargaining agreement of 15 November 1984 provided, among other things, for "plant visitors." The plant visitors were contemplated to be union repre- sentatives, and the Company promulgation of contrary rules without union participation is a violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent violated the Act in several ways, especially Section 8(a)(5) and (1), (a) with- drawing recognition of the Union as the exclusive collec- tive-bargaining representative of its employees within the appropriate bargaining unit and thus refusing to bargain with the Union, (b) promising a wage increase to said employees, (c) granting a wage increase to said employ- ees, and (d) prohibiting access to the employees in accord with the contract, the Respondent will be or- dered to cease and desist from interfering with, restrain- ing, or coercing its employees in any like or related manner with respect to their rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act. Respondent shall be further or- dered to affirmatively recognize and, upon request, bar- gain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargain- ing representative of the employees in the appropriate unit and, if an understanding is reached, to embody such understanding in a signed agreement and to post at its fa- cility copies of the attached notice all pursuant to the order CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 2 General Counsel filed a request for special permission to appeal the administrative law judge's ruling permitting respondent to present, through an extended offer of proof its entire position regarding the valid- ity of the collective-bargaining agreement of 15 Nos ember 1984 Re- spondent filed opposition to General Counsels special appeal Having duly considered the matter, and noting that Respondent's contentions re- garding the validity of the collective-bargaining agreement and the need for a hearing on this issue have already been considered by the Board in a request for review in 5-RC-874, and in connection with Respondent's previous request for special permission to appeal the judge's quashing of Respondent's subpoena, the Board is of the opinion that all matters that Respondent seeks to present through its entended offer of proof have been or could have been presented earlier, and that the offer of proof in the format permitted by the administrative law judge will serve only to unnecessarily delay processing of the instant case Accordingly, the ad- ministrative law judge is reversed and the judge is directed to exclude the evidence that Respondent seeks to present in the form of an extended offer of proof By direction of the Board 1 Washington Stair and Iron Works, Inc is an em- ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(2) and (6) of the Act. 2. International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Shopmen's Local Union No. 486, AFL-CIO is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3 The Respondent has withdrawn recognition of the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in violation of the collective-bargaining agreement of 15 November 1984 and thus of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 4. The Respondent promised wage increases to its em- ployees without notifying the Union, in violation of the 572 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD collective-bargaining agreement of 15 November 1984, and thus violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 5. The Respondent granted an increase in wages to its employees without notice thereof to the Union , in viola- tion of the collective-bargaining agreement of 15 Novem- ber 1984, and thus violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 6. The Respondent promulgated a "no access" rule, which had the effect "no access" to the plant by union collective-bargaining agreement of 15 November 1984, and thus violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. [Recommended Order omitted from publication.]