The North American Coal Corp.

788 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The North American Coal Corporation and Interna- tional Union, United Mine Workers of America. Case 18-CA-10202 July 11, 1988 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS BABSON AND CRACRAFT On March 7, 1988, Administrative Law Judge Stephen J. Gross issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The Union filed an answering brief in opposition to the Respondent'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' and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions as modified and to adopt the rec- ommended Order.2 The judge concluded that the Respondent's re- fusal to provide information requested by the Union concerning the location of leases and coal- related assets of the Respondent and its subsidiaries and joint ventures within the State of North Dakota violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. No exceptions to this conclusion were filed. The judge also concluded that the Respondent's refusal to provide such information was a contributing cause of the November 1, 1987 strike by unit em- ployees. Accordingly, the judge concluded that the strike was an unfair labor practice strike from its inception. The Respondent excepts to the judge's finding of an unfair labor practice strike. We agree with the judge that the November 1, 1987 strike was an unfair labor practice strike. In reaching this conclusion, we find it unnecessary to rely on the judge's suggested rationale that any dis- cussion of an unfair labor practice during an em- ployee meeting called to discuss whether to strike automatically establishes a presumption that any subsequent strike is an unfair labor practice strike. Rather, we find in the circumstances of this case sufficient evidence that the Respondent's undis- puted unlawful refusal to provide bargaining infor- mation was a contributing cause of the strike. ' 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 8 The Respondent alleges that it has fully remedied the unfair labor practice by forwarding the requested information to the Union on March 23, 1988, posting the required notice on March 25, 1988, and meeting with the Union to discuss the lease and asset information on March 30, 1988 Therefore, it maintains that the strike has reverted to an economic strike We leave this issue to be litigated and resolved in compliance We emphasize that the requested information was relevant to the bargaining issue of employee job security, an issue of paramount concern to the Union in negotiations for a successor agreement. In fact, the Union linked these matters in its initial in- formation request. Further, just 3 days prior to the strike, the Union informed the Respondent during bargaining that it could not make any more propos- als on job security without the requested informa- tion, and it gave strike notice over this issue.3 Shortly thereafter, at the November 1 strike meet- ing, employees were informed about the nature of the Union's information request, the Respondent's refusal to provide the information, the Union's spe- cific need for the information in order to make job- security proposals, and the Union's opinion that any strike would be an unfair labor practice strike.4 On these facts, we conclude that the General Counsel has affirmatively established the requisite causal connection between the Respondent's un- lawful refusal to provide the information and the strike. Accordingly, we find that the November 1 strike was an unfair labor practice strike from its inception. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, The North American Coal Corporation, Bismarck, North Dakota, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order. 8 Although not mentioned in the judge's decision, the uncontroverted testimony of Bruce Boyens, the Union's chief negotiator, was that. I believe on the 28th of October the last few things were said about our proposals was that it was unfortunate they wouldn't supply the information because we couldn't make any more proposals on job se- curity than we already made or alter ours without it, and that we were going to have to strike over that 4 We agree with the judge that the Union here obviously recognized the strategic advantage of portraying the impending work stoppage as an unfair labor practice strike , but we disagree with his suggestion that this advantage and its exploitation should be viewed as a factor indicating the lack of any real causal connection between the unfair labor practice and the subsequent strike Everett Rotenberry, Esq., for the General Counsel. David J. Laurent, Esq. and Thomas Smock Esq., of Pitts- burgh, Pennsylvania, for the Respondent. Karen L. Yablonski-Toll, Esq., of Denver, Colorado, for the Charging Party. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE STEPHEN J. GROSS, Administrative Law Judge. The Indian Head Mine is a surface coal mine near Zap, North Dakota. The Respondent, The North American Coal Corporation (North American), owns and operates the 289 NLRB No. 102 NORTH AMERICAN COAL CORP. 789 mine. The Charging Party, the International Union, United Mine Workers of America (UMWA), represents the mine's 55 employees. During the course of bargain- ing over a new collective-bargaining contract covering the Indian Mine, the UMWA asked North American for information about North American's other coal-related assets in North Dakota. North American refused to pro- vide the information. Subsequently the employees of the Indian Head Mine went out on strike. 1. INTRODUCTION The General Counsel contends that North American violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) when the Company failed to provide the UMWA with the information it sought, and that a cause of the strike by the employees of the Indian Head Mine was North American's refusal to provide the UMWA with such information. I As claimed by the General Counsel, my conclusions are that (1) North American violated the Act when it re- fused to provide the information sought by the UMWA, and (2) the strike against North American is an unfair labor practice strike. II. NORTH AMERICAN'S REFUSAL TO PROVIDE INFORMATION The 1984 collective-bargaining agreement between North American and the UMWA covering the employ- ees of the Indian Head Mine expired by its own terms on 1 September 1987 but prior to that date was extended through 30 October 1987. (All the events I subsequently refer to occurred in 1987 unless I specify otherwise.) Bargaining, looking toward a new agreement, began in July. From the start of the bargaining the UMWA repre- sentatives expressed their concern about the job security of the mine's employees. Virtually all the plant, located about 15 miles from the mine, owned by the United Power Association (UPA). The contract between North American and the UPA covering coal from the Indian Head Mine expires in March 1992. The mine's employees knew that and had come to the conclusion that North American was going to shut down the Indian Head Mine in 1992 on the expiration of the contract. The mine's em- ployees also knew that North American was discussing a follow-on contract with the UPA; but the employees as- sumed that even if North American did reach agreement with the UPA, the post-1992 coal would come from some place other than the Indian Head Mine. The em- ployees expressed all these concerns to their UMWA representatives. ' The UMWA filed its unfair labor practice charge on 4 September 1987. The complaint issued on 30 October and was amended on 13 No- vember. I heard the matter in Bismark, North Dakota, on 3 December. The General Counsel and North American submitted briefs on 6 January 1988. North American admits that it is an employer engaged in commerce (see, in this connection, Tr. 5), that the UMAW is a labor organization, that the employees employed at the Indian Head Mine constitute an ap- propriate unit, and that the UMWA is the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in that unit. The employees arrived at these concerns about their future employment without any specific advice on the subject from North American. North American has not told the employees (or the UMWA) that it is going to shut down the Indian Head Mine on the expiration of the UPA contract in 1992. On the other hand North Ameri- can has not said that the mine will remain open. And North American has said nothing about whether it plans to supply the UPA's powerplant from another mine if the Company does close the Indian Head Mine in 1992. The lead negotiator for the UMWA in the bargaining with North American was Bruce Boyens, western ad- ministrator and counsel for the UMWA. His approach to the job-security issue was to propose two kinds of con- tract provisions. Under one approach, the "jurisdictional clause" of the North American-UMWA collective-bar- gaining agreement would be amended to cover addition- al coal lands in which North American had an interest "so that the mine life of the [Indian Head Mine] could be extended."2 Under the second approach, Indian Head Mine employees would "have preferential hiring and transfer" rights to jobs at other North American Mines.3 But North American rejected the UMWA's proposals. North American's negotiating team was headed by James Rouse, director of employee relations for the western di- vision of North American. From the start Rouse took the position that (1) "we [that is, North American's man- agement] would indeed do what we could for the Indian Head Mine employees . . . [w]hen such a circumstance would arise that there would be a reduction in employ- ment at that mine ... in assisting these folks to find other employment";4 but (2) North American would not agree to any proposed contract provision that gave the Indian Head Mine employees preferential rights to jobs at any other location. North American maintained that stance throughout the bargaining. Boyens responded to Rouse's position by asking for in- formation about North American's coal lands. In particu- lar, Boyens asked for the locations of "those leases and coal related assets of North American which now exist in North Dakota." The UMWA needed that information, said Boyens in order to make or alter what job security provi- sions we had on the table an that time. The Union could not intelligently bargain without that informa- tion since it needed it in order to know what North American held and in order to make any changes in our job security proposal which could form the basis for settlement of the agreement.5 North American refused to provide the requested in- formation. The only information that North American would provide about its leases and coal-related assets, said Rouse, was information about the various properties encompassed by the definition of the Indian Head Mine in the collective-bargaining agreement between North 2 Boyens Tr. 35. 8 Ibid. 4 Rouse, Tr. 86-87 5 Tr. 12-13. 790 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD American and the UMWA. Because the UMWA's objec- tive was to provide job opportunities for the Indian Head Mine employees in the event that North American shut down the Indian Head Mine, information only about that mine was not helpful to the UMWA. Neither party subsequently altered its position about either the information request or the appropriateness of a job security provision in the new contract. III. NORTH AMERICAN'S FAILURE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION VIOLATED THE ACT North Amercian argues that the Act does not require North American to provide the information requested by the UMWA since that information is relevant only to nonmandatory subjects of bargaining. It is true that em- ployers do not have to supply information that is rele- vant only to nonmandatory subjects of bargaining. Serv- ice Employees Local 535 (North Bay Regional Center), 287 NLRB 123 at fn. 1 (1988); Otis Elevator Co., 269 NLRB 891, 894 (1984). As noted earlier, however, one of the UMWA's bar- gaining goals is to have the new collective-bargaining agreement with North American provide for preferential hiring and trasnfer rights for the Indian Head Mine em- ployees. In this regard, a unionized employer that is planning to shut down a jobsite must, of course, bargain about the effects of the action on its employees. E.g., First National Maintenance Corp. v. NLRB, 452 U.S. 666, 681 (1981). The Board has long held that where that action includes the shutdown of one location and the opening of another, the employer is obligated to bargain about "the placement of the [old location's] employees in positions" at the new location. Brown Truck & Trailer Mfg. Co., 106 NLRB 999, 1000 (1953). I know of no effects-bargaining case that deals with a shutdown years in the future. But "the words of [Section 8(d)] . . . plainly cover termination of employment which . . . necessarily results from closing an oper- ation." First National Maintenance Corp., above at 681, quoting Fiberboard Corp. v. NLRB, 379 U.S. 203, 210 (1964). That being so, it is far from clear that, even where employees have no basis for believing that their employer contemplates closing their jobsite, an employer has the right, during bargaining over a new contract, to refuse to discuss the effects of future closings or the transfer rights of employees affected by such closings. For present purposes, assume that employers are not obliged to bargain about the effects of jobsite closings as long as no closing is on the horizon. That is not the situ- ation here. There are objective circumstances specifically related to the Indian Head Mine that point to the real possibility of its shutdown. The UMWA is in fact con- cerned about the mine's employees losing their jobs in the event of such a shutdown. North American argues that despite these circum- stances, since there has been no "announced decision" by North American to close the mine, the Act does not re- quire the Company to respond to requests by the UMWA to bargain about the effects on employees of a closing of the mine.6 The central purpose of the Act is 6 North American Br at 11 to promote industrial stability and peace.7 Given the real, and reasonable, concerns of the UMWA about the Indian Head Mine employees losing their jobs, that pur- pose would plainly be disserved by the adoption by the Board of the position urged by North American. I accordingly conclude that the Act requires North American, on request by the UMWA during bargaining over a new collective-bargaining contract, to bargain with the UMWA about the effects of the possible shut- down of the Indian Head Mine on the mine's employ- ees.8 I also conclude that included within the scope of such bargaining is the question of the rights of those employ- ees to jobs at other North American mines in North Dakota.9 That brings us to the information that the UMWA seeks from North American. As discussed above, the UMWA asked North Ameri- can for information about North American' s "leases and coal-related assets" in North Dakota. That information is plainly relevant to what jobs the employees in the Indian Head Mine bargaining unit might transfer to if the Indian Head Mine does close in 1992. Indeed, as also discussed above, the UMWA advised North American that the Union "needed the information in order to make or alter what job security provisions we had on the table." I am aware that North American might have reasons for not wanting to publicize the location of its coal-relat- ed interests in North Dakota. But North American could have expressed that concern here. See, e.g., Kelly-Spring- field Tire Co., 266 NLRB 587, 588 (1983). North Ameri- can chose not to do so. I am also aware that, from North American's point of view, nothing the UMWA can propose could convince the Company to grant contractually established transfer rights to its Indian Head Mine employees. However, for obvious reasons, that consideration does not excuse an employer from supplying information of a kind that the Act would otherwise require the employer to provide. See Pertec Computer Corp., 284 NLRB 810 fn. 3 (1987). 7 Sec 1(b) of the Act; NLRB v. Financial Institution Employees Local 1182 (Seattle-First), 471 U S. 1098 (1986) 8 North American contends that to the extent the requested informa- tion is relevant to the UMWA's interest in rededfinmg the jurisdictional clause of the collective-bargaining agreement, the information relates to a nonmandatory subject of bargaining Where requested information is rele- vant to a mandatory subject of bargaining, the employer may not refrain from supplying it merely because the information is also relevant to non- mandatory subject See Oliver Corp., 162 NLRB 813 (1967). Thus I need not decide whether revision of the jurisdictional clause of the agreement would be a nonmandatory subject of bargaining Similarly, I need not decide the effect on this theory that in 1974 North American demanded a change in the jurisdictional clause of its agreement with the UMWA, and then bargained to impasse and took (and won) a strike over the matter 8 The limitations expressed in that conclusion about the scope of North American's bargaining obligation (rights to jobs in mines in North Dakota) are intended only to reflect the nature of the information request that is the subject of this hearing The evidence suggests that the UMWA assumed that any transfer rights would apply only to mines that North American might open in the future, not to mines already in operation Whether North American's bar- gaining obligation is broader than that need not to be decided here. NORTH AMERICAN COAL CORP. 791 I accordingly conclude that by failing to provide the information requested by the UMWA, North American has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. One other question about the UMWA's information re- quest remains. The complaint alleges that North Ameri- can violated the Act by failing to provide information about the "location of leases and coal-related assets within the State of North Dakota of the North American Coal Corporation and its subsidiaries and joint ventures." (Emphasis added.) However, North American urges that information about "leases or coal-related assets owned by entities other than North American are not relevant to the Union's performance of its duties." 10 In passing on the appropriateness of an information re- quest, the standard used to evaluate the relevance of the requested information "is akin to that adopted matters re- garding discovery." Thus "potential relevance is suffi- cient." Dahl Fish Co., 279 NLRB 1084 (1986); see NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 437 (1967). Under a variety of circumstances, information on the location of the leases and coal-related assets of North American's subsidiaries and joint ventures could be relevant to the bargaining between the UMWA and North American about the impact of the possible closing of the Indian Head Mine on the mine's employees.'' III. IS THE STRIKE AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE STRIKE The employees of the Indian Head Mine who are members of the UMWA are organized into a local union of the UMWA, Local 8880. As touched on earlier, the collective-bargaining contract between the UMWA and North American expired on 30 October. On that date the UMWA's president, Richard Trumka, notified Local 8880 by telegram that he authorized a strike, effective 12:01 a.m. the following day, "upon the expiration of the agreement between the United Mine Workers and North American Coal Company." Daniel Neurohr is the president of Local 8880. Ac- cording to Neurohr: (1) the Local ordinarily receives such a telegram whenever a collective-bargaining agree- ment comes to an end, and (2) that kind of telegram always preceeds a strike by Local 8880. The members of Local 8880 met during the evening of 1 November. Neurohr read Trumka' s telegram . Neurohr then referred to, among other things, North American's refusal to provide information that the UMWA had re- quested, and said that the strike would be an unfair labor practice strike. Dallas Wolf is a UMWA representative in North Dakota. Wolf spoke after Neurohr. Wolf testified that he told the employees-"basically . . . that we are author- ized to go on strike by the president and he is the only one [who] can authorize a strike."12 50 Reply dated 12 November 1987. 11 The UMWA's last request for information did not refer to the hold- ings of North American's subsidiaries and joint ventures. However, earli- er requests did and North Amencan apparently understood that last re- quest to encompass such entities. See North American's Br. p. 2. 12 Tr. 73. Wolf, like Neurohr, while discussing whether to strike, referred to North American's failure to provide informa- tion, briefly described the kind of information the UMWA wanted, and mentioned why the Union wanted it. In the course of his talk, Wolk reiterated Neurohr's view that the strike would be an unfair labor practice strike. The employees did not vote on whether to strike. Rather, in Wolf's words: The impression we got was that everybody wanted to go on strike . . . I got up and asked if there is any objection that I will go tell the press that we are on strike, and there was no objection.' a The strike did begin on 1 November and picket signs did use the term "unfair labor practice." Neurohr was the only Indian Head Mine employee called to the witness stand by either the General Counsel or the UMWA. North American did not call any em- ployees as witnesses. The General Counsel contends that the foregoing facts show that the strike is an unfair labor practice strike. The question that raises is whether the strike was caused at least in part by North American's refusal to provide the information that the UMWA sought; was that refusal a "contributing cause" of the strike. 114 Certainly there is evidence to support the contention of the General Counsel and the UMWA that the strike is an unfair labor practice strike. Namely, Neurohr (Local 8880's president) and Wolf (a UMWA representative) testified that they referred to North American's failure to provide information in the course of the meeting of the members of Local 8880 that led directly to the strike. A number of factors point in the other direction. First, the basis of the UMWA's authorization of the strike was, clearly, the fact that the old contract had expired and no new one had been agreed to. The UMWA did not grant the authorization because North American had failed to provide information. Second, it could prove greatly to the advantage of the Indian Head Mine employees and their union that the strike be considered an unfair labor practice strike. Thus at the meeting preceding the strike Neurohr and Wolf had considerable incentive to refer to North American's refusal to provide information (or, at least, to testify that they made such references), even if they did not care about North American's failure to provide information and even if they thought the employees felt the same way. Third, the record tells us nothing about the thoughts of the employees (other than Neurohr) as they went out on strike. Fourth, in the normal course of events one would expect that, from an employee's viewpoint, an employ- er's failure to provide information would be wholly overshadowed by other kinds of issues. In this case those other issues would be the expiration of the collective- 13 Tr. 74. 14 E.g., American Gypsum Co., 285 NLRB 100 ( 1987); Citizens National Bank, 245 NLRB 389, 391 ( 1979). 792 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD bargaining contract and North American' s adamant re- fusal to provide for job transfer rights.15 Ultimately, it seems to me, the question is whether Neurohr's and Wolf's statements to the employees raise a presumption that the employees' states of mind reflected those statements when the employees opted to strike. If so, it was up to North American to prove that that was not the case. If not, the General Counsel did not present a prima facie case.16 Whatever the answer might be, if the slate was clean, it appears that the Board has resolved the question. Credible evidence that the employer's unfair labor prac- tices were referred to in the course of the meeting of em- ployees that led to the strike proves that the strike is an unfair labor practice strike, absent evidence to the con- trary. American Gypsum Co., above; see also Buffalo Con- crete, above at 841-842 (1985); Struthers Wells Corp. v. NLRB, 721 F.2d 465 (3d Cir. 1983).1 I accordingly conclude that the strike by the employ- ees of North American's Indian Head Mine was an unfair labor strike from its inception on 1 November 1987.18 THE REMEDY The accompanying recommended Order requires North American to provide the information sought by the UMWA.19 The recommended Order also requires 's On at least one occasion the Board had held that an employer's un- lawful failure to provide information was a cause of a strike Buffalo Con- crete, 276 NLRB 839 (1985). But the information the union sought there at least arguably was more directly related to the employees' concerns than is the case here 19 The General Counsel has the burden of proving that a strike is an unfair labor practice . See Tufts Bros, 235 NLRB 808 , 810-811 (1978). 11 There would have been no strike, of course, had the UMWA and North American been able to reach agreement. It is conceivable that had North American provided the requested information, the UMWA could have come up with a job security proposal satisfactory to North Amen- can and that North American and the UMWA would subsequently have entered into a collective-bargaining agreement If it were probable that an agreement would have been reached but for North American's refusal to provide the information, that might alone be enough to prove that the strike was an unfair labor practice strike, whatever thoughts the employ- ees might have had about why they were going out on strike See Brooks, Inc., 228 NLRB 1365, 1367 fn 12 (1977) The likelihood that the UMWA and North American would have reached agreement had the Union gotten the information is too remote for the theory to apply 19 North American argues that it is premature to consider in this pro- ceeding whether the strike is an unfair labor practice strike since the strike is ongoing and since (as of the end of the hearing, at least) no em- ployees have made unconditional offers to return And it is true that the General Counsel could properly have litigated in a subsequent proceed- ing the question of whether the strike is an unfair labor practice strike E g , International Business Systems, 258 NLRB 181, 193 (1981), enfd mem 701 F 2d 158 (3d Cir 1983) But the Board long ago concluded that an appropriate alternative approach is to deal with that question in the proceeding that considers the actions alleged to constitute the under- lying unfair labor practice, even though the strike is then still underway. J H Rutter-Rex Mfg. Ca, 115 NLRB 388, 414 (1956), enfd 245 F 2d 594, 597-598 (5th Cir 1957), Louisville Chair Co, 161 NLRB 358, 376 (1966), enfd 385 F 2d 922 (6th Cir 1967). (For a recent example of a ruling by the Board that an ongoing strike was a unfair labor practice strike see Port Plastics, 279 NLRB 362 (1986) ) 19 North American urges that "the only entity that should be required to produce information is North American"-not "North Amen- can's nonparty subsidiaries or affiliates " Br at 12-13 North American's point is well taken and I do not understand the General Counsel to argue otherwise. That does not, however, excuse North American from pro- ducing information about the leases and coal-related assets of its subsidi- North American to reinstate striking members of the bar- gaining unit in the event any such strikers unconditional- ly ask for reinstatement, dismissing, if necessary , employ- ees hired on or after 1 November as replacements, and requires North American to pay backpay commencing 5 days after any such striker makes an unconditional offer to return to work. Such employees' loss of earnings shall be computed as prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1980), with interest computed in accordance with New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).20 The General Counsel urges that the recommended Order include a visitatorial provision authorizing the Board to engage in discovery, if necessary, to monitor compliance with the Order. The facts of this case do not warrant the imposition of this kind of provision. See Cherokee Marine Terminal, 287 NLRB 1080 (1988). On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record , I issue the following recommend- ed2t ORDER The Respondent, The North American Coal Corpora- tion, Bismarck, North Dakota, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Interna- tional Union, United Mine Workers of America (UMWA), as the exclusive bargaining representative of the members of the bargaining unit at the Respondent's Indian Head Mine, by refusing to furnish the UMWA with information relevant to the effects on the members of the bargaining unit of a possible closing of the Indian Head Mine. (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) Provide the UMWA with the information specify- ing the location of the leases and coal-related assets within the State of North Dakota of the Respondent and its subsidiaries and joint ventures. (b) On their unconditional offer to return to work, offer to all unfair labor practice strikers immediate and full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions , without prejudice to their seniority of any other rights and privi- leges, dismissing, if necessary, any persons hired by the Respondent on or after 1 November 1987, and make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suf- fered as a result of the Respondent's refusal, if any, to anes and joint ventures, to the extent that such information is available to North American See fns. 10 and 11, above, and the related text 20 Under New Horizons, interest is computed at the "short-term Feder- al rate" for the underpayment of taxes as set out in the 1986 amendment to 26 U.S.C § 6621 21 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 NORTH AMERICAN COAL CORP. 793 reinstate them in the manner set forth in the remedy sec- tion of this decision. (c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay- roll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records nec- essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at its Indian Head Mine copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."22 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 18, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized repre- sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other materi- al. (e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply. 22 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. I. REGARDING OUR FAILURE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO THE UMWA WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with the International Union, United Mine Workers of America, by refusing to furnish the UMWA with information rele- vant to the effects on employees of a possible closing of the Indian Head Mine. 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 tell the UMWA where in North Dakota we and our subsidiaries and joint ventures have leases and coal-related assets. II. REGARDING REINSTATEMENT AND OTHER RIGHTS OF STRIKING EMPLOYEES On the unconditional offer to return to work of any Indian Head Mine employees who are on strike against us: WE WILL offer to reinstate them to their former jobs without prejudice to their seniority or any other rights and privileges. If those jobs no longer exist when the em- ployees unconditional offer to return to work, we will reinstate the employees in substantially equivalent posi- tions. WE WILL, if necessary in order to reinstate such em- ployees, dismiss any persons we hired on or after 1 No- vember 1987. WE WILL make whole such employees for any loss of earnings they may have suffered as a result of our refus- al, if any, to reinstate them. THE NORTH AMERICAN COAL CORPORATION