Thermo Electron Corp., Holcroft/Loftus, Inc.

820 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Thermo Electron Corporation , Holcroft/Loftus, In- corporated and Carpenters District Council of Detroit, Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, St. Clair, Sanilac and Monroe Counties and Vicinities, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO. Cases 7-CA-24352 and 7-CA-25506 16 December 1987 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT On 28 October 1986 Administrative Law Judge Lowell Goerlich issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions, a supporting brief, and a brief in opposition to the General Counsel's motion to strike, and to the General Counsel's cross-exceptions. The General Counsel filed a motion to strike Respondent's exceptions, cross-ex- ceptions, and both supporting and answering briefs. 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' and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions only to the extent consistent with this Decision and Order. The judge found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by reducing pay- ments, which were provided for under a pension plan established by the collective-bargaining agree- ment, to a class of employees when the Respondent terminated the pension plan. The judge further, found this reduction to have been a midterm modi- fication of the contract and, thus, violative of Sec- tion 8(d) of the Act. We disagree. The pension plan provides that an employee on layoff more than 3 months is discharged. Although the plan contains "continuous service" require- ments, the Respondent argues that these require- ments are irrelevant to the dispute; an employee's status is determined as of the date the plan is termi- nated and the passage of time does not affect the computation of an employee's benefits. The Gener- al Counsel argues a contrary position. Both parties produced expert witnesses at the hearing. This case presents us with a contract dispute. We note the absence of evidence that the Respondent acted out of animus toward the Union, or in bad faith, or that the Respondent sought to undermine the Union. The Board held in NCR Corp., 271 NLRB 1212 (1984), that when the dispute is solely one of contract interpretation (as it is here) the Board will not attempt to determine which of two equally plausible contract interpretations is correct. Accordingly, we find no unfair labor practice here. ORDER The complaint is dismissed. Ellen J. Dannin, Esq., for the General Counsel. Ronald G. Acho, Esq., of Livonia, Michigan, for 'the Re- spondent. George H. Kruszewski, Esq, of Detroit, Michigan, for the Charging Party. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE LOWELL GOERLICH, Administrative Law Judge. The charge in Case 7-CA-24352, filed by Carpenters District Council of Detroit, Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, St. Clair, Sanilac, and Monroe Counties and Vicinities, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO (the Union), on 1 March 1985, was served on Thermo Electron Corporation, Holcroft/Loftus, Incor- porated (Respondent), by certified mail about the same date. The charge in Case 7-CA-25506 was filed by the Union on 14 February 1986 and served on the,Respond- ent by certified mail about 18 February 1986. An order consolidating cases, amended complaint, and notice of hearing was issued on 20 March 1986. In the amended complaint it is alleged that the Respondent reduced pen- sion benefits unilaterally in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act).' The Respondent filed a timely answer in which it denied that it had committed the unfair labor practices alleged. The case came on to be heard on 21 April, 30 June, and 1 July 1986 at Detroit, Michigan. Each party was af- forded a full opportunity to be heard, to, call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally on the record, to submit proposed findings of fact and, conclu- sions, and to file briefs All briefs have been carefully considered On the entire record in this case and from my observa- tion of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make the fol- lowing FINDINGS OFFACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND REASONS THEREFOR I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent admits that Holcroft/Loftus is a wholly owned subsidiary of Thermo Electron Corpora- tion; that Holcroft/Loftus is, and has been at all times ' In view of our decision, we deny the General Counsel 's motion to strike However, we note that the Respondent did not advance its cause ` The complaint also alleged an unlawful refusal by the Respondent to by the numerous misstatements and mischaracterizations contained in its provide the Union with requested information This allegation was with- brief drawn at the hearing 287 NLRB No. 83 THERMO ELECTRON CORP material, a corporation duly organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Michigan and Thermo Electron Corporation is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, and that Holcroft/Loftus manufactures custom heat-treating equipment. Holcroft/Loftus further admits that it maintains its principal place of business at 12068 Market Street in the city of Livonia, Michigan, and that it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of heat-treating fur- naces and related products The parties stipulated that the Respondent's business activities meet the jurisdictional requirements of the Act. The Respondent is now, and has been at all times ma- terial , an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union and its servicing representatives, Locals 95 and 1452, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO are, and have been at all times material, labor organizations within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES First. The most recent labor agreement (1 October 1983 to 30 September 1986) between Holcroft/Loftus and the Union provides, among other things (art. X): The Holcroft Retirement Trust Plan covers all shop Employees with one year of service as of June 30 Should changes be desired, it is the priviledge [sic] of Management to make new plans or to revise existing plans without consulting the Union. Howev- er, existing Pension Benefits cannot be reduced or ter- minated without prior approval of the Union. [Empha- sis added ] The above-mentioned retirement plan contains the fol- lowing provisions that are pertinent to a decision in this case. Section 1 3, "Definitions," provides in paragraph (k)• "Employees" shall mean any person employed by the Company Section 1.3(p) provides: "Participant" shall mean any Employee who par- ticipates in the Plan as provided in Section 2 and any Employee who has retired under the plan or who has terminated employment with rights to a deferred vested benefit in accordance with Section 4.5 Section 3.1, "Continuous Service," provides in para- graph (b)(2) (amended 2 September 1980): An Employee who is re-employed shall have his prior period of service restored provided his Period of Severance was equal to or less than such period of service (such period of service may itself be the aggregate of separate periods of service in accord- 821 ance with this section, but only in respect of Sever- ance from Service Dates which occur after July 1, 1976) An Employee who was partially or fully vested before his Period of Severance shall have his prior period of Service restored regardless of the length of his Period of Severance. Section 3 l(b)(3) (amended 2 September 1980) pro- vides: An Employee who is on layoff shall be discharged at the end of three months of layoff if he has not been recalled to work for the Company An Employee who is on a leave of absence approved by the Com- pany due to personal illness, injury or temporary disability or such other reasons as may be approved by the Company shall be discharged at the end of six months of such leave of absence if he has not re- turned to work for the Company . The time on layoff or leave of absence prior to discharge shall be included in the Employee 's period of service. In approving leaves of absence , the Company shall treat all similarly situated Employees in a non-dis- criminating manner. [Emphasis added ] Section 3 l(b)(6) (also amended 2 September 1980) provides An Employee who is re-employed within one year after the date he quits, retired or was discharged or within one year after the first day of an absence for some other reason shall have his prior period of service restored and shall also have the period of such temporary absence included in his period of service. Section 4.5, "Deferred Vested Benefit," provides A Participant with 5 or more years of Continu- ous Service whose employment is terminated for reasons other than retirement or death shall be eligi- ble for a Deferred Vested Benefit in accordance with the provisions of Section 5.5. Section 5 4, "Late Retirement Benefit," provides: The Late Retirement Benefit of an Employee who retires under the provisions of Section 4 4 shall be equal to his Accrued Benefit determined as of the date he actually retires, and shall be payable on the first day of the month coincident with or next following such retirement, or, if later, upon his proper application therefor Section 5.5, "Deferred Vested Benefit," provides: The Deferred Vested Benefit of a Participant who becomes eligible therefor under Section 4 5 shall be equal to his Accrued Benefit determined as of his date of termination of employment multiplied by the applicable percentage from the table below, and shall be payable commencing on (a) his Normal Retirement Date, or 822 or DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) if later, upon his proper application therefor, (c) with respect to a Participant who had either (a) completed 15 or more years of Continuous Serv- ice as of his date of termination and who so elects, on the first day of any, month following his attain- ment of age 55 or (b) completed 10 or more years of Continuous Services as of his date of termination and who so elects, on the first day of any month following his attainment of age 60, reduced by 5/9ths of 1% for each of the first 60 full months that the date of commencement of the Participant's benefit precedes his Normal Retirement Date, plus 5/18 of 1% for each full month in excess of 60 that the date of commencement of the Participant's ben- efit precedes his Normal Retirement Date.' The percentage to be applied to the Participant's Accrued Benefit shall be determined based on his Continuous Service in accordance with the follow- ing table: Years of Continuous Service Less than 5 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 - 12 13 14 15 or more Percentage 0 25 30 35 40 45 50 60 70 80 90 100 Section 11 .3, "Procedure Upon Termination," provides: In the event of the termination of the Plan in whole or in part, the Accrued Benefits determined as of the date of termination bf all affected Participants shall be fully vested to the extent that they are then funded. The assets then remaining in the Fund (such assets being first used to provide for expenses of ad- ministration and liquidation) shall be allocated, to the extent they shall be sufficient, by the trustee for the purpose of providing benefits, based on the advice of the Actuary and upon Continuous Service and Accrued Benefits as of the date of termination of the Plan, in the following manner and order of precedence [emphasis added]: (a) to provide retirement benefits to Participants and beneficiaries who were 'receiving payments under the Plan as of the beginning of the three (3) year period ending on the termination date of the Plan, each such benefit to be based on the provi- sions of the Plan as in effect during the•five (5) year period ending on the termination date under which such benefits would be least. For the purpose of this paragraph, the lowest benefit in pay status during the three (3) year period shall be considered the benefit in pay status for such period, (b) to provide retirement benefits to Participants and beneficiaries which would have been payable as of the beginning of the three (3) year period ending on the termination date of the Plan if the Partici- pants had retired prior to the beginning of such three (3) year period and if his benefits had com- menced (in the normal form of annuity under the Plan) as of the beginning of such period, each such benefit to be based on the provisions of the Plan as in effect during the five (5) year period ending on the termination date under which such benefits would be the least, (c) to provide all other vested benefits insured by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation under Section 4022 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and any amendments thereto; (d) to provide all other vested benefits under the Plan; and (e) to provide all other Accrued Benefits under the Plan. The amount allocated according to this Section 11.3 under any order of precedence, with respect to any benefit, shall be properly adjusted for any allocation of assets with respect to that benefit under a prior order of precedence, so that no Participant or bene- ficiary shall receive more than the Actuarial Equiv- alent of his Accrued `Benefit determined at the time of the Plan's termination. If the assets available for allocation under any order of precedence in this Section 11.3 are insuffi-, cient to satisfy in full the benefits of all Participants included in such order of precedence, then the assets shall be allocated pro rata among such Par- ticipants on the basis of the actuarial value (as of the date of termination) of their respective benefits described in such order of precedence. Any residual assets of the Plan remaining after the allocations de- scribed above in this section 11.3 shall be distributed to the Company, provided all liabilities of the Plan to Participants and their beneficiaries' have been sat- isfied Subject' to applicable law, the allocation referred ,to in this Section 11.3 may be implemented through the continuance of the existing Fund, or through a new Fund established for that purpose, or through the purchase by the Trustee from an insurance com- pany of nontransferrable annuity contracts, or by a combination of these methods. Second: According to Joseph J. Mirisola, vice presi- dent 'of Holcroft/Loftus, the pension plan was approved for termination on 6 February 1984. On 21 November 1983, the Respondent addressed to all current Holcroft/Loftus employees, terminated vested employees, and retirees a letter in which appeared the following language: I want to take this opportunity to state that what- ever benefits each of you is entitled to as per the terms of the current plan, will be given you upon formal termination on the plan Specifically, once THERMO ELECTRON CORP the plan termination has been approved , the follow- ing options will be made available to you, the par- ticipants. ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS -Present value of accrued benefits can be rolled into the Thermo Plan. -Cash Settlement -Annuity purchased in your behalf. TERMINATED VESTED PARTICIPANTS Present Value Greater than $1,750.00. -Cash Settlement -Annuity Purchased in your behalf Present Value Less than $1,750 00: -Cash Settlement RETIRED PARTICIPANTS -Annuity Purchased in your behalf Thereafter, the Respondent advised each beneficiary under the plan of the benefit he would receive on termi- nation of the plan in terms of annuity, lump sum value in cash, or transfer to new plan if applicable. The General Counsel maintains that in computing the amount that each beneficiary should receive under the plan the Respondent violated article X of the labor agreement, supra, by reducing the benefits of the follow- ing named employees Charles Aston Jr. Robert J Bayer Richard Broecker Donald Bucata Melvin Greiner Edwin N. Haack Loucretia Hylton Christopher J. Juracek Thomas Majewski Stephen Marcoe Martin C Missig Paul Schaffer Jeffrey Scheurich Wesley E. Sims The Respondent paid these employees, all of whom were not on the Respondent's active payroll as of 6 Feb- ruary 1984, a percentage of their accrued benefits equiva- lent to the percentage of their vested benefits, whereas employees on the Respondent's active payroll were paid 100 percent of their accrued benefits 2 The General Counsel in her brief offers the following example (p 6). "[Ajn employee, such as then 58-year old Donald Bucata, had accumulated an accrued benefit of $7,373 35 based upon his nearly 10 years work for Re- spondent and the level of his salary. On 21 November 1984, however, he was given a check for only $3,574.11 " The employees named above all fall within the same group in these respects : At the time the plan was termi- nated on 6 February 1984 each of the employees, except Stephen Marcoe,3 had been on layoff status for over 3 2 According to Union Attorney Ann Elizabeth Neydon, Company Vice President Joseph J Mirisola thus described what the Respondent had done a Marcoe's "Employee Salary History Form" reveals that Marcoe was laid off on November 11, 1982, and rehired on April 23, 1983 (G C Exh 823 months and each had been reemployed prior to the dis- tribution of the pension benefits Each of their payments was less than that received by employees on the active payroll, who received their full accrued benefits.4 Each had 5 years or more of continuous service. Third- Under the above-quoted provisions of the pen- sion plan the above-named employees are "participants" in the plan ("`Participant' shall mean any employee . who has terminated employment with rights to a de- ferred vested benefit in accordance with Section 4 5"). On termination of the plan the above-quoted provi- sions provide that "all affected Participants shall be fully vested to the extent that they are then funded." The Re- spondent concedes that there is enough money in the fund to fulfill -this requirement if the above-named em- ployees are "affected participants." In the case of NLRB v. Suburban Lumber Co., 121 F.2d 829, 832 (3d Cir. 1941), the court stated in respect to the word affect "The dictionary says: `To act upon; produce an effect on; touch,' and the cases are equally unanimous in emphasizing this inclusive character and so hold it to mean `acting upon,' `working a change in,' or `concerning."' The above-named employees were obvi- ously "affected participants" since with the termination of the plan they lost benefits that would have matured had the plan continued. Thus, it follows that the above-named employees, who were affected participants, all should have received 100 percent of their then-accrued benefits as did other em- ployees on the Employer's payroll rather than a percent- age of their then-accrued benefits equivalent to the per- centage of their vested benefits. Hence, by reducing the amounts due the above employees under the pension plan on its termination without the Union's approval, the Respondent effected a midterm modification of the labor agreement in violation of Section 8(d) of the Act and thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act See Fourco Glass Co, 250 NLRB 953, 955 (1980); Michigan Drywall Corp., 232 NLRB 120 (1977). See also Brown Co., 278 NLRB 783 (1986); Westinghouse Electric Corp., 7) Thus, he would have been employed as of 6 February 1984, The Em- ployee Salary History Form of Martin C Missig does not appear in the exhibit 4 Martin J Gallagher, the General Counsel's expert witness , in a letter addressed to the administrative law judge (which was received in evi- dence without objection) explained how the above-named employees' benefits were calculated The calculation[s] set forth in the certificates (G C Exhs 6(a)-(I)) and provided to the Company and the employees are based on the formula for determining the participants' respective deferred vested benefits, ig- noring the plan 's termination provisions Such certificates also indicate the lump sum actuarial equivalent of the deferred vested benefits and the amount available for transfer to the Thermo Electron Corporation retire- ment plan, in which participation was extended to Holcroft/Loftus em- ployees effective January 1, 1984 On the assumption that the actuarial calculations made by the Wyatt Company are mathematically correct, and that my interpretation of the termination provisions of the plan is correct, then the lump sum values available to each affected participant would be increased to an amount that would represent the lump sum actuarial equivalent value of 100 per- cent of his accrued benefit For example , in the case of Donald Bucata, who is shown as being entitled to a lump sum benefit of $3317 97 (G C Exh 6(c)), his actual benefit would be $7373 i i in addition, he would be entitled to interest in the amount of $569 11 for the period from February 6, 1984, to November 21, 1984 824 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 278 NLRB 424 (1986), U.S Utilities Corp, 254 NLRB 480, 487 (1981) In Rapid Fur Dressing, 278 NLRB 905 (1986), the Board stated- It is well established that Sections 8(a)(5) and (1) and 8(d) of the Act prohibit an employer who is party to an existing collective-bargaining agreement from modifying the terms and conditions of employ- ment established by that agreement without obtain- ing the consent of the union. Nor is there any doubt that pension plans and vacation benefits are well within the scope of this prohibition againt unilateral midterm modifications of a collective-bargaining agree- ment [Emphasis added.] tory duty to effectuate the purposes of the Act The public interest outweighs any alleged procedural defect. The Respondent's second defense is not well taken. The Respondent's third defense, which is in essence a claim that the employees receiving a partial payment of benefits under the pension termination plan forecloses the pursuance of the unfair labor practice charge filed here, is likewise not well taken since an individual may not waive, bargain away, or compromise an unfair labor practice claim that is imbued with a public right See Mi- chael M. Schaeffer, 261 NLRB 272, 273 (1982), enfd. 697 F.2d 558 (3d Cir. 1983). See also Stevens Ford, 271 NLRB 628, 632 (1984) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Fourth. The Respondent raises additional defenses, i e., the National Labor Relations Board does not have juris- diction in this matter because the employees failed to ex- haust the remedy under the retirement plan, the National Labor Relations Board does not have, jurisdiction be- cause the grievance was not filed in a timely fashion nor was it properly pursued through the grievance procedure and employees have signed a release and satisfaction with regard to the moneys they received. In respect to the first defense set out above, suffice it to say that the Union had no appealable rights under the pension agreement. Under plan section 10, only a partici- pant or beneficiary has a right to protest a claim. More- over, the Union's protest here is the essence of its unfair labor practice charge, charging that the Employer has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by making an illegal midterm modification of the contract. It is obvious that the Board has jurisdiction of such' a claim, which in its nature is different from a claim of a beneficiary or a participant who has been deprived of a benefit under the pension plan of which the Union was neither a partici- pant nor a beneficiary The defense is not well taken. Concerning the second defense, the Respondent relies on GAF Corp, 265 NLRB 1361 (1982). Because that case involved a question whether an employer violated Sec- tion 8(a)(5) by refusing to submit certain pension issues to the grievance/arbitration procedures of the collective- bargaining agreement, it is not in point since the instant case raises the question whether the Respondent commit- ted an unfair labor practice by effecting a midterm modi- fication of the contract without the approval of the Union Although, as contended by the Respondent, a court may require a union to exhaust contractual grievance procedure before it will entertain an action for the breach of a labor agreement, I have not been cited any case that holds that the same principle shall be applied in an unfair labor practice case involving the Board's exer- cise of jurisdiction over an employer's midterm modifica- tion of a contract without the approval of the union Al- though the Board considers deferral appropriate under certain circumstances, the Respondent here has neither asked for deferral nor accepted arbitration under the contract. It follows, therefore, that if the Board fails to exercise jurisdiction the Union will be left without re- 1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in com- merce within the,meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act for jurisdiction to be exercised 2 The Union is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act 3 All production and maintenance employees em- ployed by the Respondent at its facility located at 12068 Market- Street, Livonia, Michigan, excluding office cleri- cal employees, guards, salesmen, engineers, draftsmen, superintendents, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit of employees appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.5 4. At all times material , by virtue of the collective-bar- gaining agreements in effect between the Union and the Respondent covering the unit, the most recent of which by its terms was effective from 1 October 1983 until 30 September 1986, and by virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act, the Union has been, and is now, the exclusive- repre- sentative of the unit for the purposes of collective bar- gaining concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of employ- ment, and other terms and conditions of employment 5. The Respondent's reduction of payments to the fol- lowing employees on termination of the pension plan re- sulted in a midterm modification of the agreement with the Union in violation of Section 8(d) of the Act and constitutes a violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Charles Aston Jr Robert J. Bayer Richard Broecker Donald Bucata Melvin Greiner Edwin N Haack Loucretia Hylton Christopher J Juracek Thomas Majewski Stephen Marcoe Martin C Missig Paul Schaffer Jeffrey Scheurich Wesley E. Sims 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act course and the Board will be unable to perform its statu- 5 The Respondent does not deny this allegation THERMO ELECTRON CORP 825 THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer- tain unfair labor practices, it is recommended that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act It is further recommended that the Respondent be or- dered to make payment of termination pension benefits to the following named employees in the same manner and in the same amount as it made payment to compara- ble employees on the Respondent's active payroll, that is, each employee shall receive his full accrued benefit, to- gether with interest from 6 February 1984 to be comput- ed in the manner prescribed in Florida Steel Corp, 231 NLRB 651 (1977) On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed6 ORDER The Respondent, Thermo Electron Corporation, Holcroft/Loftus, Incorporated, Livonia, Michigan, its of- ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall I Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees in the appropriate unit set out below by reducing pension benefits without prior approval of the Union. The appro- priate unit is: All production and maintenance employees em- ployed by the Respondent at its facility located at 12068 Market Street, Livonia, Michigan, excluding office clerical employees, guards, salesmen, engi- neers, draftsmen , superintendents and supervisors 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) In conformity with the remedy section of this deci- sion, pay each of the following named employees their accrued benefits under the terminated pension plan, plus interest Charles Aston Jr. Robert J Bayer Richard Broecker Donald Bucata Melvin Greiner Edwin N Haack Christopher J. Juracek Thomas Majewski Stephen Marcoe Martin C. Missig Paul Schaffer Jeffrey Scheurich 6 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 Loucretia Hylton Wesley E. Stets? (b) 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. (c) Post at its Livonia, Michigan plant copies of the at- tached notice marked "Appendix "8 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized rep- resentative, shall be posted by the Respondent immedi- ately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where no- tices 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 - (d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply 7 The Respondent shall be given credit for any money already paid to any of the above-named employees in connection with the termination of the pension plan 8 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 National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or- dered us to post and abide by this notice WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Car- penters District Council of Detroit, Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, St Clair, Sanilac and Monroe Counties and Vi- cinities, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO as the exclusive bargaining repre- sentative of the employees in the appropriate unit set out below by reducing pension benefits without prior ap- proval of the Union The appropriate unit is: All production and maintenance employees em- ployed by us at our facility located at 12068 Market Street, Livonia, Michigan, excluding office clerical employees, guards, salesmen, engineers, draftsmen, superintendents and supervisors as defined in the Act WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act 826 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL pay the following named employees the ac- Donald Bucata Martin C . Missig crued benefits due and owing them under the terminated Melvin Greiner Paul Schaffer pension plan, together with interest. Edwin N. Haack Jeffrey Scheurich Loucretia Hylton Wesley E Sims Charles Aston Jr. Christopher J. Juracek Robert J . Bayer Thomas Majewski THERMO ELECTRON CORPORATION, HOL- Richard Broecker Stephen Marcoe CROFT/LOFTUS INC.