Ernst Enterprises, Inc.

ERNST ENTERPRISES 565 Ernst Enterprises, Inc. and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW. Case 9- CA-23593 June 30, 1988 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND BABSON On June 22, 1987, Administrative Law Judge Peter E. Donnelly 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 conclusions2 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, Ernst Enter- prises, Inc., Dayton, Ohio, its officers, agents, suc- cessors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order. leging that Ernst Enterprises, Inc. (Employer or Re- spondent) had unlawfully threatened, promised, and oth- erwise coerced employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Further, that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (d) of the Act in that Respondent, in the course of negotiations, "insisted to impasse that wage and benefit concessions be agreed to by the Union and included in any collective-bargaining agreement reached, notwithstanding the fact that Respondent had granted all unit employees a 5-percent wage increase in May 1986, immediately prior to the NLRB election which resulted in the Union's certification." A hearing was held before me in Dayton, Ohio, on 17 and 18 March 1987. Briefs have been timely filed by the General Counsel and Re- spondent and have been duly considered. FINDINGS OF FACT I. EMPLOYER'S BUSINESS The Employer is an Ohio corporation with facilities in various States, including facilities at Cincinnati and Leba- non, Ohio, the facilities involved in the instant proceed- ing, where it is engaged in the manufacture and nonretail sale and distribution of ready-mixed concrete and other products. During the past 12 months Respondent pur- chased and received at its Cincinnati and Lebanon, Ohio facilities products, goods, and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Ohio. The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that the Employer is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. ' The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find- ings. The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cit. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings 2 We adopt the judge's conclusion that the Respondent engaged in bad-faith bargaining in September and October 1986 by insisting to im- passe on wage and benefit reductions, in retaliation against its employees for having supported the Union. In so doing, we emphasize the particular facts of this case, including the Respondent's 8(aXl) violations, such as the threat to cut wages and benefits if the Union won the election, and the Respondent's grant of a 5-percent wage increase only 4 months prior to insisting on wage reductions without any substantiating reasons Bruce H. Meizlish, Esq., for the General Counsel. Robert J. Brown, Esq., of Dayton, Ohio, for the Respond- ent. Ronald E. Mason, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the Charging Party. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE PETER E. DONNELLY, Administrative Law Judge. The charge was filed by International Union, United Auto- mobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW (Union or Charging Party) on 6 Oc- tober 1986. A complaint issued on 24 November 1986 al- II. LABOR ORGANIZATION The complaint alleges, the answer admits, and I find that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Facts' Beginning in late March or early April 1986,2 the Union began an organizing effort at the Respondent's two cement plants in Lebanon and Cincinnati, Ohio. These two facilities are managed jointly, treated as one in the corporate structure, and served by one crew of about 20 cement truckdrivers and about 5 support em- ployees, mechanics, and general maintenance. Cincinnati ' There is conflicting testimony regarding some allegations of the com- plaint In resolving these conflicts, I have taken into consideration the ap- parent interests of the witnesses. In addition, I have considered the inher- ent probabilities, the probabilities in light of other events , and corrobora- tion or lack of it, also the consistencies or inconsistencies within the testi- mony of each witness and between the testimony of each and that of other witnesses with similar apparent interests . In evaluating the testimo- ny of witnesses, I rely specifically on their demeanor and have made my findings accordingly. While apart from considerations of demeanor, I have taken into account the above-noted credibility considerations, my failure to detail each of these is not to be deemed a failure on my part to have fully considered it Bishop & Malco, 159 NLRB 1159, 1161 (1966) 2 All dates refer to 1986 unless otherwise indicated 289 NLRB No. 75 566 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD is a new plant. It became operational in October 1985 and began its first full production season 1 April 1986. The Union's principal employee organizer was Kevin Lamb, a driver. Lamb solicited authorization cards for the Union, held union meetings, and distributed union pamphlets, stickers, and pins. The union campaign was conducted openly. Union supporters, including Lamb, wore hats and pins and displayed bumper stickers in the presence of supervisors, including Denny Cole, division supervisor; Mark Van de Grift, vice president of oper- ations; and John Ernst, president. About mid-May, prior to the representation election on 5 June,3 in the dispatch trailer at the Cincinnati plant, Robert Beatty, former plant manager for Cincinnati-Leb- anon, testified to a conversation he overheard between Ernst, Cole, and Julie Cain, the dispatcher, in which Ernst made the statement that he would bargain with the Union presumably if it won the election, but would not sign a contract. Cole and Ernst denied this conversation. However, having carefully weighed the testimony, I am satisfied that Beatty was the most candid and reliable of these witnesses, and I credit his testimony. Sometime in May at a time when Respondent was hiring drivers for the Cincinnati-Lebanon operation, Beatty testified that he was told by Cole that they did not want to hire any of the Union "son-of-a-bitches" from Reading Concrete, whose employees were represented by the Teamsters. It appears that some Reading drivers were terminated when the operation was sold to another company. Cole denies that he said this, although he admits that he in- structed Beatty that they were not going to hire any ter- minated Reading employees since he felt they were not qualified if they were not rehired by the new owners. In evaluating the testimony on this matter, I am persuaded that Beatty was the more convincing and should be cred- ited. In late May shortly before the June 5 election, Ernst approached Lamb at the trailer parking lot of the Cincin- nati operation and said to him "`Let's face it. You have some influence on the people around here.' And he said, 'If you forget about this union stuff here we have possi- bly some management openings in Atlanta you could work into.' And I said, `Well, I can't do that John.' And he said `Well, how about if we make you a lead man right here at this plant here and we can work out a con- tract for these guys. We don't need a union to do that.' And I said `I can't do that neither.' He said, `Well, I re- spect you for where you stand.' And that was about the end of the conversation." Ernst admits that he took Lamb aside to discuss problems at the Cincinnati facility and to see what his complaints were. He also concedes that he asked Lamb if he would want to go to Atlanta, because they needed employees in the Respondent's new Atlanta operation, and Lamb had previously shown some interest in going there, but that he was not offering any supervisory position in either Atlanta or Cincinnati for Lamb to withdraw his support from the Union. He also denied offering to work out a contract without the Union. A careful analysis of the testimony convinces me that Lamb was the more reliable witness , and I credit his testimony. Accordingly, I find that by offering Lamb a management position to withdraw Ins support for the Union, and by soliciting Lamb to circumvent the Union by dealing directly with him, Respondent has interfered with the organization rights of employees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. A few days prior to the 5 June election, James Moore and Mark Blevins, both drivers, testified that they were in the yard of the Cincinnati plant discussing the union campaign when Van de Grift broke into their conversa- tion and stated to them that if the Union were voted in, the Respondent had a legal right to cut their wages and benefits. Neither Moore nor Blevins responded to this and went about their work. Van de Grift recalls the con- versation but not specifically what he said. However, Van de Grift testified that what he had told employees throughout the campaign was that they can start where they are and can negotiate either down or up. Having re- viewed the testimony, I am satisfied that the mutually corroborative testimony of Moore and Blevins is a more reliable account, particularly since Van de Grift did not recall specifically what he said. Accordingly, in the cir- cumstances, I conclude that Van de Grift's statement was coercive and constitutes interference with the orga- nizational rights set out in Section 7 of the Act. In May 1986, Van de Grift testified employees were given a 5-percent wage increase, which was provided for in Respondent's budget.4 A representation election was held on Friday, 5 June, in a unit of production and maintenance employees, in- cluding truckdrivers, loader operators, and mechanics at the Cincinnati and Lebanon facilities. The Union won the election and was certified on 13 June. On Monday, 8 June, at 6 a.m., Ernst called a meeting of all the unit employees for both locations at the park- ing lot of the Cincinnati plant, just outside the trailer being used as temporary office space. Management em- ployees present were Cain, Cole, Beatty, Van de Grift, John Ernst, and John Ernst Jr., son of John Ernst, assist- ant vice president of operations, and another manage- ment employee named Andrew Allen. Ernst addressed the employees telling them, according to Lamb, in sub- stance, that he would bargain with the Union in good faith because he had to but that he would stand 100 per- cent behind the eight people who did not vote for the Union in the election. Also that he would dedicate his life to the fight against the Union and that if something happened to him, his son, John Ernst Jr., would take over. This testimony is generally corroborated by the testimony of Moore and Blevins. Ernst testified that the meeting was called because of "chaos" within the unit concerning the effect of repre- sentation by the Union. According to Ernst, he told the group that the Respondent had lost the election and he would bargain in good faith, denying that he said "be- cause he had to." Also, that it was "looking like a pretty good year coming up," and that they needed everyone pulling together. He denied saying that he would dedi- ' No unfair labor practice charge was filed alleging illegality in the The election was won by the Union by a vote of 12 to 8. granting of this wage increase ERNST ENTERPRISES 567 cate his life to fighting the Union but as to the eight who voted against the Union , Ernst testified. And the people had voted for me , in the trust of the company, or trusted me in the company, that I wouldn't betray that trust . And if something ever happened to me, I pointed to my son and said, "You'll carry that trust on." And that was the end of the conversation. A series of negotiating sessions began with noneco- nomic items being discussed in the early sessions. The Union was represented by International Representatives Ronald Mason or Jim Caldwell, and several employees, including Lamb, Moore, Blevins, and Don Brown. Re- spondent was represented by spokesman Attorney Rich- ard Brown, Van de Grift, John Ernst Jr., and Cole. Cer- tain economic issues, wages, and fringe benefits were dis- cussed at the 15 September meeting, and at the 24 Sep- tember meeting Respondent made its initial economic proposal. The unit consisted of approximately 20 drivers, 2 operators, a lead mechanic, a mechanic, and a service employee. The proposal provided, among other things, for wage reductions effective 15 January 1987 in the above classifications ranging from cuts of $1.22 per hour (drivers) to none for the mechanic. The economic pro- posal also provided for elimination of the Employer-paid family option to the health insurance coverage unless the employee paid the premium for such coverage. The monthly premium cost for the family health coverage option is $105 to $115 per month, or just about double the individual rate. Respondent also proposed elimination of a third week of paid vacation after 9 years of service although at the time no employees had 9 years of serv- ice. Respondent also offered an alternative economic proposal providing for $1.35 per hour in each classifica- tion over its original wage proposal, but eliminating all employee payments for holidays, vacation, and insurance premiums. Robert J. Brown, Respondent's attorney and spokesman during the negotiations, explained that these economic concessions were being sought because eco- nomic projections in the Respondent's budget as to pro- duction and sales for the Cincinnati-Lebanon operations were not being met. Respondent placed in evidence "Budget Income Statements" for August and September 1986 to support this position. However, at the negotiat- ing session the Union did not request nor did Respondent offer any documentation of its oral position. Van de Grift also testified that it was his best guess that budget projections in the "area" of April and May 1986, when the 5-percent wage increase was granted, were not met either. In testifying about the economic condition of the Re- spondent, Van de Grift stated that the Cincinnati oper- ation was begun because of Respondent's desire to expand the Lebanon operation in order to break into the Cincinnati market. As noted above, Cincinnati did not begin operations until late 1985 for the 1986 season. However, during the summer of 1986 it produced more concrete than Lebanon and employs about 15 drivers compared with 4 in Lebanon. Van de Grift testified that Respondent has plans to open another plant in the Cin- cinnati area around Miamitown, Ohio. Van de Grift testi- fied that Cincinnati-Lebanon is a growing operation and Ernst testified, as noted above, that the prospects were "pretty good" for 1986 and later testified that 1986 turned out to be a "pretty good" year. Brown also told the union negotiating committee that a wage survey of their competitors disclosed that some of those wage rates were much lower than Respondent's. This wage survey was conducted primarily by a sales- man named Donald Flowers by making telephone calls to some other employers and asking various people about their wage rates and benefits. Cole wrote down what- ever information he received and this was the basis of Respondent's position.5 At this negotiating session, Lamb asked Van de Grift how come they were given a raise in May and now it was being taken back and Van de Grift told him that bookkeeping was months behind and that they "just didn't catch it until now" that wages needed to be cut. Lamb also asked Brown if they were planning on making any wage cuts of Respondent's other plants and Brown said they were not at that time. It appears that prior to being unionized, Respondent had, in May 1985 at the Lebanon operation, eliminated Saturday overtime and daily overtime after 8 hours, granting overtime only after 40 hours per week had been worked. Some of Respond- ent's other operations, apparently owned or controlled by Ernst, are under contract. These include four plants in the Dayton area (Teamsters), Springfield, Ohio (Teamsters), and Richmond, Indiana-Fort Jefferson, Ohio (Laborers). In Dayton, a contract concession in May 1985 consisted of a wage reduction from $10.28 to $8.50 per hour and elimination of overtime after 8 hours and Saturday, with overtime only after 40 hours per week. However, the rate went up to $9.34 per hour in January 1986. In Springfield, a wage concession in the January 1987 contract included a wage reduction from $8.90 to $8 per hour with elimination of daily and Saturday over- time and a fourth week of vacation eliminated from the schedule as well as elimination of an employer contribu- tion to an IRA fund. At the 24 September meeting, Brown advised the Union, on inquiry, that this was not Respondent's final offer. At the next negotiating session on 29 September, Respondent produced another written economic propos- al in which the hourly wage rates were all raised 50 cents per hour over the prior proposal, and also Re- spondent agreed to pay the first $12 per week of the pre- mium cost for those employees electing the optional family health insurance coverage, with the employee paying the rest. Respondent's original alternative propos- al would also be increased by 50 cents per hour, still eliminating any payment for insurance premiums, holi- days, or vacations. Respondent's 29 September proposal also provided for jury pay and funeral leave benefits. On 5 Flowers did not testify nor did any representative of any of the sur- veyed employers, nor was any supporting documentation offered to sup- port the representations made. Thus, while the document was admitted as relevant to the issue of motivation as to the good-faith bargaining aspect of the case, it is obviously hearsay and not probative as to the accuracy of the representations made. 568 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3 October, Respondent presented its "Full and Final Economic Proposal," adding 25 cents per hour to its proposal for all classifications and also to the alternative proposal. In addition, Respondent proposed a full draft contract containing many other contract provisions to which the Union had tentatively agreed, subject to ratifi- cation by the membership, except to the extent that the Union's written proposals of 29 September was at vari- ance with it. Thus it appears that on 3 October Respond- ent's final proposal provided for a wage reduction of 47 cents per hour from the wages being paid on 25 June 1986, for drivers and operators with smaller reductions for the lead mechanic and service employee and an in- crease of 75 cents per hour for the mechanic. In addition, employees were required to pay the first $12 per week for family health insurance coverage with the Company paying the remainder. Also, a third week of vacation after 9 years of employment was eliminated. There also remained outstanding the above-noted union proposal about economic and noneconomic con- tract provisions, and the parties concede that impasse was reached at the 3 October session. Despite a meeting of the parties attended by a Federal mediator on 15 De- cember, neither party made any further modifications in its proposal. B. Analysis and Recommendations The General Counsel takes the position that Respond- ent, by bargaining to impasse regarding wage and benefit concessions, was acting in retaliation against its employ- ees for having supported the Union. Respondent con- tends that its action was not retaliatory but was motivat- ed by economic considerations. It is undisputed that Re- spondent, in May 1986, shortly before the representation election on 5 June and the certification of the Union on 13 June, gave the employees a 5-percent wage increase. It is also undisputed that Respondent's first wage propos- al on 24 September 1986, about 4 months later, called for substantial wage cuts for nearly all unit employees as well as substantially reduced health insurance coverage unless the employees paid the premiums for the reduced coverage. Also proposed was the elimination of a third week of paid vacation after 9 years of service, although it appears that no employees were affected by the last proposal since none had obtained 9 years of employment; all to become effective 15 January 1988. Respondent explains that the 5-percent wage raise was given in May because it was budgeted. The much greater proposed reduction in wages and health care in Septem- ber, it argues, were made for economic considerations. What then happened between May and September 1986 to the business condition of Respondent to justify or ex- plain the proposed reductions? Respondent argues that the basis for its proposed con- cessions was that its budget projections were not being met. However, one must be careful not to equate pro- jected budget figures with the actual economic condition of the Respondent. Projected budgets, by definition, in- volved estimates and evaluations concerning annual an- ticipated business operations of the company. These esti- mates and evaluations may be either cautious or optimis- tic depending on the projector; or perhaps even unrealis- tic. The fact that projections are or are not being met does not define the economic condition of the company. It is possible for a company to be financially robust, showing generous growth and substantial profits, and still not be meeting projected business goals. This is espe- cially true in the instant case where Cincinnati is a new plant, opening in 1986, with really no history of oper- ations on which to predicate any realistic projections at that time. In any event, Van de Grift's testimony sug- gests that projections were not being met a few months earlier at the time the May 1986 wage increase was granted. However, Respondent apparently deemed its fi- nancial position sufficiently secure to grant the 5-percent wage increase at that time. In addition, it appears that the economic condition of the Respondent was good. Indeed, Respondent does not contend, or at least offered no evidence to show that its business was not profitable or even only marginally profitable, and Respondent's president testified that 1986 promised to be and was a pretty good year for the Cincinnati-Lebanon operation. Respondent also argues that its insistence on the pro- posed concessions was justified by the fact that a wage survey of its competitors disclosed that some of them were paying less in wages and benefits. However, the written wage survey submitted to support that conten- tion is insufficient as a matter of evidence to establish that fact. The wage survey was essentially a long-handed account of information acquired by a salesman of the Re- spondent by making telephone calls to various unnamed individuals apparently employed by some of Respond- ent's competitors. Neither the salesman nor those he spoke to testified. The information itself is incomplete and nonspecific. If it were complete and detailed, it would still have no probative value for the purpose of establishing that the actual wage rates and benefits of the other companies contained therein were accurate since the document is clearly hearsay for that purpose. As the record reflects, the document was admitted only for the purpose of showing that some information on the docu- ment was read to the Union at a negotiating session. Respondent argues in its brief that the Union never de- manded documentation to support the information set out in the wage survey nor did it request substantiating data for Respondent's claim that failure to meet budget projections motivated Respondent to propose wage and benefit concessions. However, this argument begs the question. The question is whether there did in fact exist justification for Respondent's insistence on its proposals. Whether the Union demanded proof is beside the point in establishing that proposition. It is also true that Respondent, notably Ernst, did not accept the notion of unionization. Respondent resisted the Union's organizational efforts, even telling his super- visors that if the Union won he would bargain but would not sign a contract. Ernst manifested his continuing ani- mosity when he called a meeting of unit employees on 8 June, the first working day after the Union won the elec- tion. In addressing them, as noted earlier, he stated that he would negotiate with the Union because he had to but would dedicate his life to fighting the Union and would stand 100 percent behind those who voted against ERNST ENTERPRISES the Union. Although Ernst testified that he called the meeting to stabilize or normalize the operation after the election, these remarks were not conciliatory, they were hostile and reflect a continuing rejection of and contempt for the bargaining process, even after the Union was cer- tified. In these circumstances, I conclude that Respondent's proposals to reduce wages and benefits were not made in good faith and that while negotiations subsequently pro- duced impasse, that impasse was not bona fide since it was tainted and motivated by retaliatory considerations.6 IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent, set forth in section III above, in connection with Respondent's operations described in section I above, have a close and intimate relationship to traffic and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and from infringing in any like or related manner upon its employees' Section 7 rights and that it take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent engaged in bad-faith bargaining by proposing and insisting to impasse on re- taliatory wage and benefit concessions, it shall be recom- mended that Respondent be required, on request, to bar- gain in good faith with the Union. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By offering a job promotion to an employee for abandoning his support for the Union, Respondent vio- lated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By proposing to bypass the Union and deal directly with the employees, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 5. By threatening to cut wages and benefits if the em- ployees elected union representation, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 6. All production and maintenance employees, includ- ing truckdrivers, loader operators, and mechanics, em- ployed by the Respondent at its 10093 Princeton-Glen- dale Road, Cincinnati, Ohio facility and its 43344 Colum- bia Road, Lebanon, Ohio facility, but excluding dispatch- ers, batchmen and all office clerical employees and all professional employees, guards, and supervisors as de- fined by the Act constitute a unit appropriate for the 6 The General Counsel contends , in par 6 of the complaint, that an employee, Bill Hubbard, was threatened by Cole However, since the only testimony offered was the rejected hearsay testimony of Beatty, I shall recommend the dismissal of par 6 569 purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 7. At all times material, the Union has been and is the exclusive representative of the employees of the Re- spondent within the unit found appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining. 8. By proposing and insisting to impasse on retaliatory wage and benefit concessions, Respondent violated Sec- tion 8(a)(5) of the Act. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed7 ORDERS The Respondent, Ernst Enterprises, Inc., Dayton, Ohio, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Offering employees job promotions for abandoning their support for the Union. (b) Proposing to bypass the Union and deal directly with the employees. (c) Threatening to cut wages and benefits if the em- ployees elect union representation. (d) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively with the Union regarding wages and benefits. (e) 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) Recognize and, on request, bargain collectively in good faith with the Union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the appropriate unit described above with regard to wages, benefits, and other terms and con- ditions of employment. (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 facilities in Cincinnati and Lebanon, Ohio, copies of the attached notice marked "Appen- dix."9 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 9, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately on receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are cus- r 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 In the absence of circumstances indicating the propriety of a visits- torial clause as a part of the proposed remedial order , the General Coun- sel's request therefore is denied 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 " 570 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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. (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. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT offer employees job promotions for abandoing their support for the Union. WE WILL NOT propose to bypass the Union and deal directly with the employees. WE WILL NOT threaten to cut wages and benefits if the employees elect union representation. WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to recognize or bargain with the International Union, United Automobile, Aero- space and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, by proposing and insisting to impass on retaliato- ry wage and benefit concessions. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL recognize and, on request, bargain collec- tively with the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, with regard to wages, benefits and other terms and conditions of employment. ERNST ENTERPRISES, INC.