Northern Illinois Terrazzo & Tile Co.

36 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Northern Illinois Terrazzo & Tile Company and Tile, Marble, Terrazzo Finishers, Shopworkers & Granite Cutters International Union, Local No. 47, AFL-CIO. Case 30-CA-9578 July 29, 1988 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND BABSON On January 20, 1988, Administrative Law Judge Michael O. Miller issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed an answering 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 briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions as modified,' and to adopt the recom- mended Order. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Northern Il- linois Terrazzo & Tile Company, Rockford, Illi- nois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order. i The Respondent excepted , inter alia, to the judge's finding that the Union's March 20, 1984 letter to the Respondent was unambiguous. In adopting the judge's finding that the letter did not operate as a notice to terminate the area I agreement, we find that the letter in itself may have been ambiguous but that any ambiguity was easily clarified by reference to the area I agreement in the Respondent 's possession The Respondent also excepted to the judge's finding that the Union's June 14, 1984 letter to the Respondent did not prevent the area I agree- ment from rolling over on May 31 , 1985, because it was untimely We agree with the judge that this letter did not prevent the agreement from rolling over on May 31 , 1985 In doing so, however , we find that the language of the letter , which simply refers to current changes in wages and benefits pursuant to the new association agreement , cannot be con- strued as a notice to terminate or as a request to modify the rolled-over contract as of a date almost I year later. We, therefore, agree with the judge that the cases cited by the Re- spondent, Champaign County Contractors Assn, 210 NLRB 467 (1974), and Oakland Press Co, 229 NLRB 476 (1977 ), are inapposite, although not for the same reason. Thus, regardless of the timeliness of the Union's letter, in those cases unlike here, the language of the documents could be construed as expressing an effective notice to terminate an existing con- tract. Chairman Stephens notes that the Respondent has implicitly conceded that, if its argument based on the March 1984 letter is rejected , then it would be bound by the area I agreement at least until May 31, 1985 Paul Bosanac, Esq., for the General Counsel. Greg A. Cheney, Esq., of Rockford, Illinois, for the Re- spondent. James Judziewicz, of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for the Charging Party. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE MICHAEL O. MILLER, Administrative Law Judge. This case was heard in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on October 26, 1987, based on an unfair labor practice charge filed by Tile, Marble, Terrazzo Finishers, Shopworkers & Gran- ite Cutters International Union, Local No. 47, AFL-CIO (Local 47 or the Union), on April 24, 1987, and a com- plaint issued by the Regional Director for Region 30 of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) on June 17, 1987. The complaint alleges that Northern Illinois Terrazzo & Tile Company (Respondent) violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act), by refusing to furnish the Union with information necessary and relevant to collective bargaining. Re- spondent's timely filed answer denies the commision of any unfair labor practices. All parties were afforded full opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses, argue orally, and submit briefs. Briefs, which have been carefully considered, were submitted by the General Counsel and the Re- spondent. Based on the entire record , including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS AND THE UNION'S LABOR ORGANIZATION STATUS-PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Respondent is a corporation with an office and place of business in Rockford, Illinois, where it is engaged as a construction industry employer in the business of hard tile contracting. Jurisdiction is not in issue. The com- plaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find and con- clude that Respondent is, and has been at all times mate- rial, an employer engaged in commerce and in operations affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. The complaint alleges, Respondent admits, and I find and conclude that the Union is, and has been at all times material, a labor organization within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(5) of the Act. II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE A. The Union and its Jurisdiction The Union, with about 100 active members, represents employees who perform tile, hard tile, marble, and ter- razzo work, assisting tile layers, terrazzo mechanics, and marble masons in the State of Wisconsin. James Jud- ziewicz is its business representative, president, secretary, and treasurer. For collective-bargaining purposes, the Union has di- vided Wisconsin into two areas. Area 1 includes all the State except the counties in the southeast corner. Within area 1, the Union bargains with the Madison Area Ce- ramic Tile Contractors Association for a contract that covers hard tile, terrazzo, and marble work. In 1984, that Association had seven to nine members; it now has five 290 NLRB No. 7 NORTHERN ILLINOIS TERRAZZO CO to seven. About 30 independents, employers who are not members of the Association, also sign the area agree- ment. Area 2 encompasses the southeastern portion of the State, encompassing Milwaukee, Sheboygan, Racine, Ke- nosha, and adjacent counties. Within area 2, the Union negotiates with the six-member Milwaukee Contractors Association for three separate agreements covering hard tile, ceramic tile, and terrazzo. Twenty to twenty-five in- dependent employers also sign the area 2 agreements. At issue is whether Respondent was party to the area 1 contract after its May 31, 1984 expiration date ' B. Respondent's Relations with the Union As noted, Respondent is a ceramic tile, terrazzo, and marble contractor with its business located in Rockford, Illinois. It has a work force of 15 to 20 employees, only 1 or 2 of whom may be working in Wisconsin, within the jurisdiction of Local 47, at any given time. In the course of its business, it contracts to provide either mate- rials or labor, or both Its president is Louis D'Agnolo In 1981, Judziewicz learned that Respondent was per- forming hard tile work on a Beloit, Wisconsin shopping center within area 2..On January 24, 1981, he requested that Respondent sign the area 2 agreement, enclosing a copy of that contract, a map of the Union's jurisdiction, the wage scales, and remittance forms. The contract was returned signed by D'Agnolo on Feburary 2, 1981. That contract had a term of June 1, 1980, through June 1, 1982, but provided, in article XIX, that it would contin- ue "from year to year thereafter, unless terminated by writ- ten notice (by certified mail) given by either party to the other not less that ninety (90) days prior to said expiration date, or any anniversary thereof." (Jt. Exh 1; G C. Exh. 2.) Similarly, on September 29, 1981, having noted that Respondent was performing work within area 1 at the University of Wisconsin, in Platteville, Judziewicz asked Respondent to sign the 1981-1984 area 1 contract. Re- spondent signed and returned that agreement on Novem- ber 8, 1982. The area 1 contract had a May 31, 1984 ex- piration date and, in article XV, included the same con- tinuation , language as the area 2 agreement (G.C Exh 4.) On January 24, 1984, D'Agnolo signed the 1982-1984 Terrazzo Helpers' agreement for area 2. Although the contract contained, in article XXIV, the same continu- ation language as the 1980-1982 Tile Helpers' agreement, D'Agnolo specified in writing on the signature page that Respondent was only bound through the June 30, 1984 expiration date. (G.C. Exh. 5.) C. 1984 Negotiations and Renewals On March 20, 1984, the Union sent notices of contract termination to various contractors, including Respond- ent. Although that notice did not- specify by area the contract to which it pertained, it expressly referred to the 1982-1984 contract that expired on June 30, 1984, i The complaint alleged refusals to furnish information with respect to work performed in both areas I and 2 The parties reached a stipulation with respect to area 2 and that is no longer at issue 37 which set forth its termination language in article XXIV Comparison of that letter with the various contracts es- tablishes that it could only have been referring to the area 2 Terrazzo Helpers' agreement, referred to above (R. Exh 1, G.C Exh. 5 ) Sometime in 1984, the Union also sent timely notices of contract termination to the employer associations in areas 1 and 2, other than the March 20, 1984 letter re- ferred to above, no such notices were sent to the inde- pendent employers in either area Sometime prior to June 8, 1984, agreement was reached with the Madison Area Tile Contractors (area 1) and, on June 8, notice of that agreement and its improved benefits was sent to the independent contractors who had signed the prior agree- ment, including Respondent. (G C. Exh. 10) Similarly, the Union and the Milwaukee Contractors Association reached agreements covering the ceramic, hard tile, and terrazzo work in area 2 On June 14, 1984, the Union sent a letter to Respond- ent and other independents, requesting that they sign and return offer sheets for both the area 1 and area 2 agree- ments that had been reached with the employer associa- tions. (G.C. Exhs. 7a-d.) Either shortly before or soon after he received that letter, D'Agnolo had an early morning telephone conversation with Judziewicz. In that conversation, D'Agnolo stated that he would sign the area 2 contract, but would discuss a contract in area 1 at such time as he had work within that area. He told Jud- ziewiez that he would not sign an area 1 agreement at that time because he often found himself competing at a disadvantage with nonsignatory contractors when he was working in area I D'Agnolo signed the offer sheet and contract for the Tile Helpers in area 2, but did not sign either an offer sheet or a contract with the Union for area 1.2 On November 29, 1984, Judziewicz sent Respondent a letter listing the hourly wage and benefits rates applica- ble to the area I contract "effective December 1, 1984 through May 31, 1985 as per the current 1984-1987 Work- ing Agreement " He sent Respondent a similar letter set- ting forth the area 1 wages and benefits for the period of June 1, 1985, through May 31, 1986, on ' May 24, 1985. There is no indication in this record that Respondent re- plied to these letters or implemented any of the changes. D The Requests for Information About March 1986, Judziewicz learned that Respond- ent was working on a project near Stevens Point, Wis- consin, within area 1 He called D 'Agnolo and was told that Respondent was only supplying materials. In that conversation, as Judziewicz recalled it,3 D'Agnolo 2 Judziewicz did not recall any such conversation, but he did not ex- pressly deny that it had occurred Noting that Judziewicz referred to a telephone conversation of the prior week in his June 14 letter, and noting further that he admitted that his coverage of the entire State of Wiscon- sin spread him very thin, I must conclude that D'Agnolo's recollection is more accurate than that of Judziewicz ' D'Agnolo disputed the existence of this phone conversation, but it is consistent with the correspondence that followed 38 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD denied that Respondent had a contract with the Union in area 1 . Judziewicz suggested that he check his files. On March 7, 1986, Judziewicz wrote Respondent, ad- vising that the Union considered Respondent bound to the terms of the area 1 working agreement and expected Respondent to comply with its terms. The Union offered to provide Respondent with the names of contractors who were signatory to that agreement with whom it could subcontract for labor. On March 11, Respondent's attorney, Greg Cheney, replied, again denying the exist- ence of any contractual relationship and suggesting that the Union take its contentions to the AFL-CIO Jurisdic- tional Disputes board. On March 13, Judziewicz sent Cheney a copy of article XV of the area 1 agreement, the "roll-over" clause. On March 21, Cheney replied to the Union's lawyer, Matthew Robbins, asserting that Judziewicz's letter of March 20, 1984, had ever been reached. (G.C. Exhs. 11(a)-(d).) On March 26, 1986, Robbins wrote Cheney, asserting that the March 20, 1984 letter only pertained to the area 2 contract; the 1981- 1984 area I agreement, he wrote, was never terminated and continued in effect from year to year. He demanded compliance with the terms of that agreement. On April 4, 1986, Cheney demanded docu- mentation to support the Union's claim. (G.C. Exhs. I1(e)-(f).) On May 28, 1986, the Union filed a grievance alleging that Respondent had violated the subcontracting provi- sions of the area 1 agreement . On the same date, it also wrote Respondent, asserting that its belief that Respond- ent had violated the agreement derived from Respond- ent's "conduct of subletting work covered by our agree- ment to a non-signatory contractor." Further asserting a need based on its collective-bargaining responsibilities, the Union demanded the following information for the period of June 1, 1984, to the present: Payroll records, tax forms, and travel expense infor- mation; time cards for all employees; history of sub- contracting; all contracts with others to perform hard or composition tile work; records pertaining to the purchase of materials to fulfill committments to customers; and billings and receipts for contracted work. [G.C. Exhs. 11(g)-(h).] On June 25, 1986, Cheney supplied the Union with copies of the subcontracting agreement between Sjos- torm & Sons, Inc., the general contractor on the Stevens Point project, and Wausau Tile, Sjostorm's subcontractor for the furnishing and installation of ceramic and 5-per- cent guarry tile. Also provided was the agreement be- tween Respondent and Wausau Tile in which Respond- ent contracted to share profits or losses on that job and to provide materials. That contract stated: It is the intent that all labor be furnished through WAUSAU, but if for some reason the progress schedule cannot be met, it is hereby agreed that both parties will do whatever is necessary to prop- erly man the job. [G.C. Exh. 11(i).] On March 5, 1987, the Union again demand to meet information. In the letter (G.C. Exh. 12), the Union as- serted that its belief that Respondent had violated both the area 1 and area V agreements agreements emanated from work done by Respondent on Beloit College and the Rock County Correctional Institution. At hearing, the Union also asserted that other contract violations by Respond- ent, at least one of which had been the subject of a grievance settled favorably to the Union , gave it cause to believe that Respondent was violating its contractual ob- ligations. Respondent did not provide the Union with the re- quested information. E. Analysis and Conclusions 1. The continuation of a collective-bargaining relationship in area I In John Deklewa & Sons, 282 NLRB 1375, 1377-1378 (1987), the Board overruled earlier precedent governing 8(f) cases4 and held: . (1) a collective-bargaining agreement permitted by Section 8(f) shall be enforceable through the mecha- nisms of Section 8(a)(5) . . . and (4) upon the expi- ration of such agreements, the signatory union will enjoy no presumption of majority status, and either party may repudiate the 8(f) bargaining relationship. See also W. B. Skinner, Inc., 283 NLRB 989 (1987), in which the Board, finding no repudiation of an 8 (f) agree- ment, found Section 8(a)(5) violated by the employer's refusal to furnish requested information. Respondent , by virtue of a prehire agreement, was party to the 1981 through May 31, 1984 area I agree- ment with the Union. That contract provided that it would contiue in force and effect after May 31, 1984, unless written notice was given by either at least 90 days in advance of the termination date. The first question to be resolved here is whether that relationship did, in fact, continue after May 31, 1984. The General Counsel as- serting that neither party gave timely notice to the other of an intent to terminate or modify that agreement, argues that it did. Respondent contends that the Union terminated the agreement as of either May 31, 1984, or May 31, 1985. The record compels me to agree with the General Counsel. Respondent's first contention is that the Union's letter of March 20, 1984, was ambiguous and was reasonably construed by D'Agnolo as terminating the area I and area 2 agreements. This construction it without merit. That letter, although not expressly specifying by area the agreement to which it applied, twice refers to the 1982- 1984 agreement in the singular and identifies it by its 2- year term, its expiration date, June 30, 1984, and its dura- tion of agreement article within that contract, which provides for termination or automatic renewal, article XXIV. Only the area 2 Terrazzo Helpers' agreement bears those identifying characteristics . The area 1 agree- 4 R. J. Smith Construction Co, 191 NLRB 693 (1971), enf. denied sub nom. Operating Engineers Local 150 Y. NLRB, 480 F.2d 1186 (D.C Cir with respect to its grievance and repeated its demand for 1973) NORTHERN ILLINOIS TERRAZZO CO ment had a 3-year term, June 1, 1981, through May 31, 1984, and only 15 articles; the duration of agreement arti- cle was article XV. I find no ambiquity in the March 20 letter, which might have lead D'Agnolo to act to his det- riment in reliance on his interpretation of it. At most; there was a unilateral mistake as to the intent of this letter caused by D'Agnolo's failure to read it properly and to compare it with the contracts in his files. Such a unilateral mistake cannot support abrogation of the col- lective-bargaining relationship.5 Respondent also contends that the Union's actions, in sending Respondent the offer sheets for area 1 and area 2 on June 14, 1984, establish that Judziewicz also believed that the prior area 1 agreement between Respondent and the Union had been timely terminated. I cannot agree. Judziewicz explained that he regularly let the agreements with the independent contractors "roll over" and then subsequently sought their voluntary consent to the terms of the new agreements that had been negotiated with the Associations because he did not have the time to negoti- ate with each of them. He preferred the certainty of the continuation of the old agreements to the possible loss of the Employers as a signatory contractor. Considering the nature of the industry and the number of small contrac- tors involved, such an explanation does not appear con- trived or implausible. Further, Respondent asserts that if the 1981-1984 con- tract rolled over, the Union's June 14, 1984 letter consti- tuted a request to modify that rolled-over agreement and thus prevented it from again rolling over or renewing on its next anniversary date, May 31, 1985. This contention, while interesting, is without merit. In Connecticut Power Co., 217 NLRB 766 (1984), the Board held that a party incurs no bargaining obligation when it proposes a mid- term modification of a contract, which contains no re- opener language . The other party may accept or reject the proposed modification, but may not compel the pro- posing party to bargain over it or any other matter. Here, Respondent was free to reject the Union's propos- al, but, was not free to treat it as terminating the agree- ment or opening that agreement for further negotia- tions.6 . The Union's rejected request that Respondent execute a new offer sheet on June 14, 1984, did not prevent the 1981-1984 agreement from rolling over again on My 31, 1985, when neither party served a timely notice of termi- nation. 5I note that when D'Agnolo spoke with Judziewicz about the offer sheets for both areas, which Judziewicz had sent to D'Agnolo about June 14, 1984, D'Agnolo did not contend that the Union had terminated the area I contract or the collective-bargaining relationship According to his own testimony, which I credited, D'Agnolo merely stated that he would discuss future contracts with Judziewicz at such time as he had work within area I This tends to establish that D'Agnolo was not relying on the March 20 letter at that time 5 The cases cited by Respondent are inapposite In Champaign County Contractors Assn, 210 NLRB 467 (1974), the union timely furnished the employer with a copy of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service notice of contract termination and this was deemed adequate notice of termination in Oakland Press Co, 229 NLRB 476 (1977), the Board found a timely notice to amend a contract to constitute a termination notice, thus satisfying the contract 's termination clause In neither case had there been an untimely proposal to modify an agreement 39 Finally, Respondent claims that D'Agnolo's statements to Judziewicz around June 14, 1984, constituted a repudi- ation of the-area 1 agreement as,of either May 31, 1984, or May 31, 1985, under the Deklewa principles Deklewa holds that either party may repudiate an 8(f) agreement on its expiration. D'Agnolo told Judziewicz that he would discuss future contracts when he again had work in area 1. That statements is hardly a repudiation of their existing agreement. Moreover, it came during the term of the rolled-over agreement, and not on its expiration, and was not the written notice required by the contract Accordingly, I conclude that Respondent and the Union had a continuous, unrepudiated collective-bargain- ing relationship and collective-bargaining agreement in area 1 after May 31, 1984, and through at least May 28, 1986, when the Union made its request for information. 2. The request for information On May 28, 1986, the Union requested information from Respondent that would show whether Respondent had performed, or was performing, work within area 1, and whether Respondent had met , or was meeting, its contractual obligations to the Union with respect to such work. The Union's request was based on information it had received that indicated Respondent was, in fact, per- forming such work and on prior instances where Re- spondent had worked within the Union's jurisdiction without notifying the Union that it was doing so. The General Counsel contends, and Respondent does not appear to dispute, that the Union is entitled to re- ceive the requested information.' I agree. In W. B. Skin- ner, supra, 293 NLRB at 990, a case involving an unre- pudiated 8(f) contract, the Board held that a union that suspected the employer was not fulfilling its contractual obligations was entitled to information necessary to police that agreement. The Board stated: It is well settled that a labor organization , in its ca- pacity as a collective-bargaining representative, is entitled, on appropriate request , to information from the employer that is needed for the proper perfro- mance of its duty to police compliance with a col- lective-bargainiong agreement . NLRB Y. Acme In- dustrial Co , 385 U.S. 432 ( 1967). Certain data, such as wage and related information pertaining to em- ployees in the bargaining unit , is presumptively rele- vant because such data "concerns the core of the employer-employee relationship." Curtiss-Wright Corp v. NLRB, 347 F.2d 61 (3d Cir. 1965). In addi- tion, if requested information relates to an existing contract provision, it thus is "information that is de- monstrably necessary" :to the union "if it is to per- form its duty to enforce the agreement." A. S. Abell Co., 230 NLRB 1112-1113 (1977). The information requested by the Union pertains to arti- cle II, union security; article III, hours of work; article IV, wages (including travel and overnight expenses); and article XI, general and miscellaneous provisions (includ- 7 Respondent's only arguments went to the continued existence of the collective-bargaining relationship 40 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing hiring and subcontracting restrictions) of the rolled- over agreement . It is thus information that is both pre- sumptively relevant and necessary to the Union's polic- ing of that agreement. Based on all the foregoing, I find and conclude that the Union was entitled to the information requested in its May 28, 1986, and March 5, 1987 letters and that Re- spondent's refusal to furnish that information violated its obligation to bargain with the Union in good faith, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By refusing, during the extended term of its 1981- 1984 area 1 agreement with the Union , to supply the Union with relevant information that was related to the wages and other benefits of unit employees and neces- sary to the Union's duty to enforce compliance with its agreement, the Respondent has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 2. The unfair labor practice affects commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) On request, furnish the Union with the information sought in its letters of May 28, 1986, and March 5, 1987. (b) Post at its Rockford , Illinois office and worksites within area I of the State of Wisconsin copies of the at- tached notice marked "Appendix."e Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 30, after being signed by the Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent imme- diately 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. (c) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent engaged in an unfair labor practice, I shall recommend that it be or- dered to cease and desist thereform and take certain af- firmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. I shall recommend that Respondent be required to provide the Union with the information requested in the Union's letters of May 28, 1986, and March 5, 1987. Inasmuch as compliance with this recommended Order appears to be neither difficult nor complex, I decline to recommend the inclusion of a visitatorial clause in the recommended Order. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record , I issue the following recommend- ed8 ORDER The Respondent, Northern Illinois Terrazzo & Tile Company, Stevens Point, Wisconsin, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Refusing, during the term of a collective-bargaining agreement with Tile, Marble, Terrazzo Finishers, Shop- workers & Granite Cutters International Union, Local No. 47, AFL-CIO, to supply the Union, on request, with relevant information related to the wages and benefits of the employees and necessary for the Union to properly administer the collective-bargaining agreement. 8 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 46 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended order shall, as provided in Sec . 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur- poses 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." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELAITONS 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, during the term of a collective- bargaining agreement with Tile, Marble, Terrazzo Fin- ishers, Shopworkers & Granite Cutters International Union, Local 47, AFL-CIO to supply the Union, on re- quest, with relevant information concerning wages and benefits paid to unit employees and other relevant infor- mation that is necessary for the Union to administer the collective-bargaining agreement. 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, on request, furnish the Union with the in- formation sought by it in its letters of May 28, 1986, and March 5, 1987. NORTHERN ILLINOIS TERRAZZO & TILE COMPANY