Globe Business Furniture, Inc.

GLOBE BUSINESS FURNITURE 841 Globe Business Furniture, Inc. and Local 2338, Southern Council of Industrial Workers, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO. Case 26-CA-11921 August 16, 1988 DECISION AND ORDER ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Globe Busi- ness Furniture, Inc., Hendersonville, Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order. BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT On December 11, 1987, Administrative Law Judge Howard I. Grossman issued the attached de- cision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a brief in support, and the General Counsel filed cross-ex- ceptions and a supporting brief. 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,2 to modify the remedy,3 and to adopt the recommended Order.4 1 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 Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings. 2 In adopting the judge's conclusion that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(aX3) and (1) of the Act by locking out its employees, we note that the lockout was implemented following the Respondent's repeated, unlawful refusals to provide the Union with information it had requested for bar- gaining. Within the context of these preexisting unfair labor practices, the Respondent's subsequent lockout of its employees may not be found le- gitimate. Similarly, the Respondent's failure to provide the Union with crucial information central to bargaining renders unlawful its December 8, 1986 meetings with employees. While it is true, as the Respondent contends, that an employer may properly meet outside the presence of the union in order to explain its contract proposals directly to its employees, this is not so when the employer, as the Respondent has done here, has denied the Union the very information it needed to evaluate those same propos- als during negotiations. In such circumstances, the Respondent's dialogue with employees is not a privileged communication under Sec . 8(c) of the Act, but rather is an effort at circumventing its obligation to deal with the exclusive representative of those employees. Accordingly, we agree with the finding that the Respondent thereby violated Sec. 8(ax5) and (1) of the Act. Cf. United Technologies, 274 NLRB 609, 610 (1985), enfd. 789 F.2d 121 (2d Or. 1986). a Because the provisions of employee benefit fund agreements are vari- able and complex, the Board does not provide at the adjudicatory stage of a proceeding for the addition of interest at a fixed rate on unlawfully withheld fund payments. We leave to the compliance stage the question of whether Respondent must pay any additional amounts into the benefit funds in order to satisfy our "make whole" remedy. These additional amounts may be determined depending on the circumstances of each case, by reference to provisions in the documents governing the funds at issue and, where there are no governing provisions, to evidence of any lose directly attributable to the unlawful withholding action, which might include the loss of return on investment of the portion of funds withheld, additional administrative coats, etc., but not collateral losses. See Memyweather Optical Co., 240 NLRB 1213 fir. 7 (1979). • The General Coounsel's request for a visitatorial clause is denied in the absence of any evidence indicating a likelihood that the Respondent will attempt to evade compliance. Cherokee Marine Terminal, 287 NLRB 1080 (1988). Jane Vandeventer, Esq., for the General Counsel. Charles Hampton White and Richard L Colbert, Esgs (Cornelius & Collins), of Nashville, Tennessee, for the Respondent. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE HOWARD I. GROSSMAN, Administrative Law Judge. The charge was filed on 10 December 1986, 1 a first amended charge on 18 December, and a second amended charge on 23 January 1987, by Local 2338, Southern Council of Industrial Workers, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-C102 (the Union), and complaint issued on 27 January 1987. As amended at the hearing, it alleges that Globe Business Furniture, Inc. (Respondent or the Company) refused to furnish the Union with information on (1) its employees' addresses, telephone numbers, sex, ages, and marital status; (2) insurance costs, including present insurance cost and the past 2 years' loss experience, and factors used in determining Respondent's projected costs and ra- tionale for increase in costs; and (3) Respondent's previ- ous employee turnover, including documentation thereof. Further, the complaint alleges that the Company by- passed the Union and dealt directly with its employees by soliciting them to accept the Company's bargaining proposals. The foregoing actions are alleged to be viola- tions of Section 8(aX5) and (1) of the National Labor Re- lations Act (the Act). Further, the complaint alleges that Respondent en- gaged in a lockout of its employees in an attempt to modify a collective-bargaining argreement to which it and the Union were parties, and otherwise to undermine the Union, in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. A hearing was held before me on these matters on 27, 28, and 29 April 1987 in Nashville, Tennessee, and the General Counsel and Respondent thereafter submitted briefs. On the entire record, and on my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION Respondent is an Indiana corporation with an office and place of business in Hendersonville, Tennessee, where it is engaged in the manufacture of furniture. During the 12-month period ending 26 January 1987, Re- 1 All dates are in 1986 unless otherwise indicated. a The Charging Party's name appears as amended at the hearing. 290 NLRB No. 94 842 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD spondent sold and shipped from its Hendersonville, Ten- nessee place of business products, goods, and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State of Tennessee, and purchased and received at the place of business goods and materials exceeding the aforesaid amount in value directly from points outside the State of Tennessee . Respondent is an employer en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The pleadings establish that the Union is a labor orga- nization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. III. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Relationship Between the Parties Since 1963 the Union has been the collective -bargain- ing represenative of Respondent 's employees in a unit of production and maintenance, tool room, and shipping and receiving employees . The parties have entered into a series of collective-bargaining agreements and are cur- rently parties to such an agreement , which was effective on 18 December 1986 and expires accordingly to its terms on 1 December 1989.3 The issues in this proceed- ing concern events preceding and following the expira- tion of the prior agreement , on 1 December 1986.4 B. Bargaining in November 1. Summary of the evidence a. Union 's bargaining demand and request for information By letter dated 2 September 1986, Ray White, execu- tive secretary of the Southern Council of Industrial Workers, informed Company Vice President Frank Pat- terson that the Union desired to modify the then existing agreement, and requested the Company to begin negotia- tions with White's assistant, Timothy Byrd . White's letter also requested Patterson to furnish Byrd with the names, addresses, phone numbers, classifications, and wage rates of all employees, together with the age, sex, and marital status of each employee , the number of single and family insurance plans, and a complete breakdown on present insurance cost plus the past 2 years ' loss experience.5 Company Industrial Relations Manager Danny Bates responded a few days later with a letter to Byrd. Bates stated that it would take him "a while" to get all the re- quested information, and that he might be unable to get some of it. In the meantime, Bates suggested that negoti- ations begin on 6 November . 6 In a later telephone con- versation between Bates and Byrd , the former requested that the date be changed to 7 November .7 The bargain- 8 G.C. Exh. 3. 4 G.C. Exh. 2. G.C. Exh. 4. G.C. Exh. 5. Testimony of Byrd. ing sessions in November principally concerned noneco- nomic matters. b. The 7 November meeting The meeting was held at the Gallatin City Electric Company, about 10- 12 miles from Hendersonville. The Union was represented by Byrd as chief spokes- man, Local Union President Willie Jenkins, Chief Union Steward Clifford Wilkinson, and Local Union treasurer Dorothy White. The last three individuals were compa- ny employees. Respondent was represented by Vice President Patterson and Industrial Relations Director Bates. Byrd testified that the Union submitted proposed writ- ten changes in the contract . A preprinted topic entitled "Article 22-Insurance" was followed by the comment "See Attachment." However, there was no attachment pertaining to insurance.8 According to Byrd, he told the Company's representatives that the Union was unable to make a proposal on insurance because the Company had not provided the information requested in White's letter. This information was needed , Byrd informed the Compa- ny, so that the Union could get a competitive "bid" on insurance from the Southern Council of Industrial Work- ers Trust Fund. Byrd went over the information request- ed in White's letter. According to Byrd, the Company gave no reason for not having the information-Patter- son merely shrugged his shoulders . However, Byrd af- firmed that Bates said that the Company would give the information to Union President Jenkins within a few days so that the latter could forward it to Bryd. Company Vice President Patterson agreed that the Union asked for the information requested in White's letter, but contended that Industrial Relations Director Bates submitted it in a handwritten note . Although Bates was called as a witness by Respondent , he did not testify about insurance discussions at the 7 November meeting- except to deny that there was any request for insurance information concerning unit employees until 13 Decem- ber. Byrd agreed that he received a note , but at the next meeting . Patterson also contended that the Union's pro- posed modifications of the contract were submitted at a meeting on 17 November, and that the Union's reason for the absence of an insurance proposal was that it had not had time to get a bid from the Union's trust fund- not that it had been prevented from doing so by the Company's failure to provide the requested information. c. The 17 November meeting At the next meeting , on 17 November, the parties were represented by the same individual . According to Byrd, corroborated by Union President Jenkins and Chief Steward Wilkinson, the Union informed the Com- pany's representatives that they had not yet provided the insurance information requested in White's letter of 2 September. In the absence of this information, the Union proposed a general increase in medical benefits, plus a dental plan. As indicated, Byrd agreed that Bates gave him a note; it indicated, according to Bryd , that the 8 G.C. Exh. 6. GLOBE BUSINESS FURNITURE 843 Company had paid insurance claims of more than $400,000 in 1985 and $438,000 in 1986. Also, the sheet of paper showed over 200 single employee plans, and over 300 family plans, a total of about 540. Byrd affirmed that he again asked for the information requested by White's letter, and that Patterson and Bates said they would have it the next day. As indicated, Patterson gave a different chronology of events. In addition to asserting that the Union's proposals on contract modification were submitted at the 17 No- vember meeting, he contended that there was no more discussion of insurance (i.e., no renewal of the Union's request for insurance information). On the other hand, Patterson also contended that on 17 November he gave Byrd a letter to the Company from Corroon & Black, the administrator of the Company's self-funded insurance plan.9 Byrd denied seeing this letter before the hearing, and affirmed that he saw only a handwritten note from Bates. d. The 18 November meeting The same represenatatives met the next day, 18 No- vember. Byrd testified that he then told Bates that the Company total of more than 500 unit employees-over 200 single and over 300 married employees-was false, and that Bates gave no reply. The Union argued that the Company's totals must have included nonunit employees such as clericals, and employees at the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, Summer Manufacturing, locat- ed at Franklin, Kentucky. Byrd demanded the insurance costs and employee totals only for unit employees at the Hendersonville plant. Bates called his office, and said that the unit complement was 377. Chief Steward Wil- kinson agreed with this figure. Company Vice President Patterson denied that there was any discussion of insurance or a request for insur- ance information at the 18 November meeting. e. The 19 November meeting and comments by Company's chief financial officer On the next day, 19 November , the Company's vice president in charge of finance, James Mills, attended the meeting. According to Byrd, corroborated by Wilkinson, Mills discussed company finances, and said that the med- ical insurance cost was either $1 .40 or $1 .46 hourly per employee.10 The Union multiplied the number of em- ployees in the plant times $1.40 times the number of work hours yearly, and came up with an asserted compa- ny cost of about $1.2 million for medical insurance. The Union's representative doubted the accuracy of this figure, and asked Mills whether it was true . He asserted that it was. The Union protested the discrepancy be- tween the prior year's cost, $438,000, and the $1.2 mil- lion projection claimed by the Company. Y The letter, dated 30 October, states that the Company's medical in- surance expenses in 1985 for "Globe employees" were about $432,000, and in 1986 about $438,000. "Projected" expenses for 1987 were about $91 for each employee and about $245 for each family (R. Exh. 1). to Chief Steward Wilkinson testified that Mills gave $1 .40 as the hourly cost. Chief Steward Wilkinson testified that he told the Company that they as well as the Union knew that their $1.2 million figure was "ridiculous." Patterson agreed that the figure was high and said that he would try to get to Corroon & Black in a day or two, and get the matter "straightened out." Byrd affirmed that Patterson promised the information the next day. Company Vice President Patterson acknowledged that Mills spoke at the 19 November meeting and gave "pro- jected financial information." However, Patterson denied that there was any discussion of insurance or any request for insurance information. The Union asked to see the Company's audited financial statements. Mills did not tes- tify. f. The 20 November meeting On 20 November the Company made its economic proposals to the Union." They continued to include Company-paid insurance, but increased the employee de- ductible over that in the previous plan.' a Whereas the Company paid for dependent coverage under the then existing plan, proposed that employees pay for this ex- pense under the new contract.'s As shown hereinafter, these proposals were changed to an offer that the only employee payment for depend- ent coverage would be by "temporary" employees, and that this would be restricted to one-half the cost of such coverage. Whereas the old contract paid for all insurance costs (up to specified limits) for dependents and employ- ees who had completed their "probationary periods," the Company's new proposal was that employees would first be covered after 120 days of employment, but that "new" employees would be required to pay one-half of the cost of their dependent coverage. The witnesses oc- casionally substituted "temporary" for "new" employees in identifying those employees who would be required to pay one-half of dependent coverage. According to Byrd, the Union could not determine the actual cost for dependent coverage for new or tempo- rary employees without getting some explanation from the Company for the difference between the $438,000 last-year cost figure, and Mills' projection of about $1.2 million for the next year . Although the Union asked for an explanation, the Company gave no answer. Byrd testi- fied that Patterson just shrugged his shoulders, and that Bates said the Company could not get the information. Byrd responded to Bates that the latter could get infor- mation on insurance costs for every unit employee at Hendersonville from Corroon & Black. Bates again denied that he could get the information, and Byrd re- plied that Bates knew he could, that all Corroon & Black had to do was "punch their computer a couple of times" and get the information. In addition, the Union requested information from the Company on the amount of savings that it would achieve as a result of its economic proposals. " G.C. Exh. 8. 12 G C. Exh. 2, an. 22. 23 G.C. Exh. 8. 844 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Patterson testified that the parties agreed on language changes, and that the Union wanted to know the project- ed savings from the Company's economic proposal. g. Union's request for insurance costs and other information concerning unit employees As noted, the Union questioned the Company's pro- jected insurance costs, based in part on its belief that those costs included nonunit employees. Wilkinson testi- fied that the Union on 18 November requested costs only for unit employees.14 In an apparent effort to prove that the Union knew or could have learned the number of unit employees and thus their insurance costs, Industrial Relations Manager Bates testified about union access to timeclocks and time- cards in the plant, and six union stewards. The existing contract had a checkoff provision, and the Company provided a union steward with a weekly checkoff report.15 In addition, according to Bates, the Company distributes a seniority list twice yearly to the union presi- dent and a steward, and posts it on all three of the Com- pany's bulletin boards.16 Finally, a weekly seniority list is distributed to all supervisors. Bates agreed that salaried employees had a better health plan than hourly employ- ees, and that the benefits were paid differently. Union President Jenkins testified that there were 70-80 employees in the bargaining unit who were not members of the Union, and whose names were not on the checkoff list. Tennessee is a right-to-work state. He testified that he saw all three of the Company's bulletin boards daily during the last 4 months of 1986, and never saw an em- ployee seniority list. The Union's president affirmed that he asked Bates for one in late 1986. Jenkins further testi- fied that he could have obtained a list at any time- which he explained by saying that he got one, without management approval, from an office clerical. Jenkins asked Bates for a copy of the foreman's seniority roster, but never received one. Examination of the Company's checkoff printouts sup- plied to the Union and the seniority lists assertedly posted on the bulletin boards shows that neither of these documents indicated the employees' addresses, telephone numbers, sex, age, or marital status.17 Chief Steward Wilkinson testified that'he had access to the checkoff lists and the timecards, and from the latter could have counted the number of unit employees. Wilkinson stated that he agreed with Bates that the total of 377 unit employees was accurate, and that it was this figure that the Union used in its computation that Mills' $1.40 hourly insurance amount meant a total insurance cost of $1.2 million to the Company. 14 I do not credit Bates' testimony that the Union first asked for unit insurance costs on 13 December. In addition to Wilkinson's explicit testi- mony, it is obvious from White 's original demand letter that he was asking for information pertaining to unit employees . Patterson admitted that he knew the parties were negotiating only about unit employees. 15 R. Exh. 2. 16 R. Exh. 3. 17 R. Exhs. 2 and 3. 2. Factual analysis Union spokesman Byrd was a credible witness with good recall of the events. In addition, he was corroborat- ed on various points by other union witnesses. The only company witness who testified about these events, Vice President Patterson, was inconsistent at times and was uncorroborated. Thus, Patterson's assertion that there was no discussion of insurance at the 17 November meet- ing is inconsistent with his claim that he then gave a copy of the Corroon & Black letter concerning that sub- ject to union spokesman Byrd. In the absence of any tes- timony from Financial Officer Mills, I credit the union witnesses that Mills discussed company finances includ- ing projected insurance costs of 19 November. Patterson agreed that Mills gave "projected financial information," but denied that he discussed insurance. I do not credit this denial, or Patterson's other denials that the Union re- quested insurance information. I conclude that the Union on various occasions repeated the request for information in White's letter and told the Company the reason it needed this information-in order to get a competitive bid from the union trust fund. It is unnecessary to deter- mine whether the Union's proposal was made on 7 or 17 November, although it is probable that Byrd was correct in affirming that it was given on the earlier date. As set forth above, White's letter asked for various items of information about employees, the number of single and family insurance plans, and the past 2 years' loss experience. Additional requests for information were made during the November negotiations based on the Company's profered information-the costs specifically attributable to unit employees, and the reasons for the Company's projected increase in costs from about $438,000 to about $1.2 million annually. The testimony of Byrd and Wilkinson corroborates the Company's evidence that it gave the Union a handwrit- ten note with the 1985 and 1986 loss experience based on the Corroon & Black letter."" However, the letter speci- fies that it concerns the benefit plans of "Globe employ- ees," not unit employees. The fact that this loss figure in- cludes nonunit employees is further established by the Company's assertion of about 540 insurance plans-far more than the 377 employees that, Bates agreed, were in the unit. Such individuals included salaried employees who, according to Bates, had a better plan with benefits that were paid differently. It follows that the cost figures given to the Union in November did not portray the prior insurance costs of unit employees for two rea- sons-the figures included nonunit employees, and the latter had a different benefit plan. Based on all the evidence, I conclude that there were 377 employees in the unit at the time of these negotia- tions. However, it does not follow that the Union would have been able to compute the prior insurance costs for unit employees even if it had had a reliable cost figure for all company employees-the variation in cost be- tween unit and nonunion employees was such that a unit cost figure based on the proportion of unit employees rs R. Exh. 1. GLOBE BUSINESS FURNITURE 845 (377) to total employees (540) would have been inaccu- rate. Further, the Company claimed a "projected" cost for the forthcoming year with an increase from $438,000 to about $1.2 million. This was not explained by the Com- pany despite the Union's request for clarification. I therefore conclude that, through November, the Company did not provide any of the information re- quested by the Union, either in White's 2 September letter, or during negotiations. However, the parties did agree on various noneconomic matters. C. Bargaining in Early December 1'. The 1 December meeting, the Union's rejection of the Company's proposal, and the extension agreement The period between the 20 November meeting and the 1 December meeting included the Thanksgiving holiday. Union spokesman Byrd testified that he had other union business on the first 3 days of that week. However, Byrd affirmed, he offered to meet with the Company on the weekend before 1 December (a Monday), when the exist- ing contract was scheduled to expire. The Company re- fused to, according to Byrd. Patterson denied this, and asserted that he offered to meet on Thanksgiving Day, the following Friday, or the weekend. Byrd was the more credible witness and I accept his version. On Monday, 1 December, the Union advised the Com- pany at the meeting that union spokesman Byrd would be available through Thursday of that week but would be unavailable on Friday because of other commit- ments.19 The Union submitted economic proposals,80 as did the Company.81 The latter included a new insurance provi- sion that required all employees employed after 1 De- cember 1986 (new employees) to complete 120 workday before being eligible for insurance benefits . Therefter, the Company would pay for new employees' insurance and the employee would pay for one-half of his dependents' coverage.22 There was no change in coverage for exist- ing employees. According to union spokesman Byrd, the Company said that it would save about $500,000 as a result of this proposal over a 5-year contract. Company Vice President Patterson testified that the savings would be $40,000 to $50,000, although the period in which they would be effected is not clear from the record.23 Byrd protested that the Company's stated insurance costs were not true, and asked why those costs would have increased over 60 percent from one year to the next. According to Byrd's uncontradicted testimony, the Company gave no response.24 The Union's membership rejected the Company's pro- posal on the evening of 1 December but voted to contin- ue working during continued negotiations. Byrd called Patterson and requested a 15-day extension of the agree- ment. He conceded that he told Patterson that there would be a strike vote if the Company refused to extend the contract. Following a return call from Patterson, Byrd and other union representatives went to the plant in the evening and were presented with an extension agreement that provided that the extension would not go past midnight on 8 December, and that the exclusive issue to be discussed was the length of the contract. The Union demanded that this latter restriction on the re- maining issues be omitted, and the Company agreed.25 2. The 2 December meeting The Union continued to protest the validity of the Company's insurance costs, and the Company replied that they were based on "actuarial valuations." Howev- er, Patterson admitted that he told the Union that he would call Corroon & Black and get the dollar amount, based on actual loss experience, of the Company's pro- posal that new employees pay half the cost of dependent coverage. The Union was also concerned about a "two-tier" em- ployee system-the Company's hiring of "temporary" employees at lesser wage rates and benefits . The Compa- ny's 1 December proposal would have eliminated a prior restriction on the number of such employees .26 In re- sponse to the Union's inquiry, the Company said that it planned to hire 100 temporary employees in the follow- ing year. The Union then asked for the Company's turn- over rate during the past 3 years as a rationale for its projection of the hiring of temporary employees, and the Company promised to provide it the next day. The par- ties also discussed wages and other economic issues. Pat- terson agreed that Byrd said it was the Union's intention to negotiate without a strike. 3. The 3 December meeting Bates told the Union that the Company had an 8-10- percent turnover rate, and that 40-50 employees annually had left the Company. Although Chief Steward Wilkin- son said that he accepted this figure, Byrd testified that he told the Company it was "ridiculously high," and that the national average was less than 5 percent. The Union continued to protest the accuracy of the Company's asserted insurance costs, and asked how much new employees would actually have to pay as their one-half share of the cost of dependent coverage.27 19 Testimony of Union President Jenkins. 90 G.C. Exhs. 9 and 10. a' G.C. Exh. 11. as G.C. Exh. 11, art. 22. as According to Patterson, the Company's proposal would achieve its greatest savings as a result of the insurance revision, with changes in wages, job classifications, and other categories resulting in lesser savings. a• On the same day, I December, the Union's auditor examined the Company's financial statement with Company Vice President Mills. Byrd testified on cross-examination that the Union's auditor could not deter- mine the Company's financial status because the Company did not use "proper accounting procedures." However, the Union did not raise the issue again, and the Company's financial status was not an issue thereaf- ter. sa G.C. Exh. 12. $' G.C. Exh. 11, an. 15, sec. 14. 57 According to Patterson, the Union made this request an 2 Decem- ber, and he told them on 3 December that it would be no more than $75 to $76 monthly. However, he agreed that it was "excessive," and prom- ised a lower figure based on "actual " costs. 846 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Finally, the Union renewed its demand for the informa- tion requested in White's 2 September letter, and the Company promised to give it the next day. 4. The 4 December meeting Byrd and Jenkins testified that the Company stated that one-half of dependent coverage for temporary em- ployees would be about $75. This in turn was based on Corroon & Black's "projected" costs in their 30 October letter, which asserted a cost of about $91 for single em- ployees and about $245 for family plans.28 Byrd averred that the Company's reasoning on the $75 charge was as follows: "You take $91 from $244, that leaves you with $150, and you divide by two which is $75 and that is what the figure would be." This was one-half the single rate, according to Jenkins.29 The Union asked the Company to provide the infor- mation previously requested and the Company replied that they did not have it. At that point, there was a recess which the Uion prepared a letter to the Company requesting (1) documentation (a) that 377 was the correct number of unit employees, and (b) that the employees' turnover figures previously given were accurate; (2) the projected number of employees in 1987; (3) the projected number of temporary employees in the next 3 years and the means of arriving at this figure; and (4) a determina- tion about the projected temporary employees would be in addition to the estimated unit complement of 377. In addition, the letter repeated the previously expressed dis- crepancies between the 1986 and projected 1987 insur- ance costs, and requested the factors used in figuring the 1987 projection as well as an explanation of the 60-per- cent increase.30 The Union then delivered this letter to Patterson. Byrd affirmed that he told the Company that the information was needed because of the effect that the Company's proposals would have on temporary employees and the insurance costs of new hires. According to Byrd, Patter- son said that he would give the requested information to Union President Jenkins and other union officials on the following day. Patterson agreed on cross-examination that he told the Union he would provide a response the next day.31 According to Byrd, the meeting closed with his an- nouncement that he had to leave town and would call the Company about the next meeting. Patterson contend- ed that Byrd promised to call him back the same after- noon, and to have the next meeting either on the same day or the following day, 5 December. Byrd did not call, according to Patterson. Union President Jenkins, however, testified that Patterson was reminded on 4 De- cember that he had been advised 3 days before that Byrd 28 Supra, fn. 9. 29 Without quarreling over the Company's arithmetic, its apparent rea- soning was that subtraction of the cost of a single employee plan from the cost of a family plan resulted in the cost of dependent coverage, and that half this amount would be the Company 's proposed expense to be paid by new employees . These figures are based on Corroon & Black's projected costs for 1987 rather than the actual costs for prior years (R. Exh. 1). 30 G.C. Exh. 14. 31 Patterson also contended that he could buy only estimate future sales and the number of employees. would be out of town on 5 December. Further, accord- ing to Jenkins, it was agreed on 4 December that Byrd would call Patterson on the morning of 8 December (a Monday) to arrange the next meeting. I credit Byrd's and Jenkins' testimony concerning the way in which the 4 December meeting ended. After the meeting, Vice President Patterson asked Union President Jenkins for a meeting the next day, 5 December. Jenkins refused because Byrd was out of town. Patterson testified that Jenkins called early on 6 December stating that there could be no meeting because Byrd was out of town. Patterson also asserted various preparations for a 5 December meeting. Jenkins denied the call, and I do not credit Patterson's testimony-he knew on 4 December, or before, that Byrd would be out of town on 5 December and that there would be no meeting on that day. 5. Company's final proposal on 6 December and Union's rejection Byrd returned home on the evening of 5 December and found messages from Patterson and Bates waiting for him on his telephone recorder. Patterson wanted a meet- ing on 6 December, and Bates left his work number. Pat- terson called Byrd early on Saturday, 6 December, and requested a meeting that day. Byrd responded that he had a meeting in the afternoon with Ray White and that evening with the negotiating committee. Patterson then said that he would deliver the Company's "final propos- al" that morning to Jenkins and the other committee members. Byrd replied that, under these circumstances, the committee was not compelled to present the proposal to the membership. Byrd asked whether the Company had given Jenkins the information that it had promised on 4 December. Patterson replied that the Company had not done so. Byrd then responded to Patterson that the Company was not negotiating in good faith. He repeated the Union's need for the information. Union President Jenkins confirmed that he asked Bates for the requested information on the morning of 5 December, and that the latter said he did not have it. Patterson and Bates personally went to Jenkins' home on Saturday morning, 6 December, and attempted to de- liver a company proposal. Jenkins refused to receive it on the ground that the committee would have questions about it, but the Company's representatives left the pro- posal and a cover letter in Jenkins' mailbox and distribut- ed copies to other committee members, including Byrd.32 The Company's proposal suggests various benefit in- creases for current employees, lesser benefits for employ- ees hired after 1 December 1986, and other provisions. The Company's 1 December proposal that new employ- ees pay one-half of the cost of insurance coverage for de- pendent33 is amended to provide that the cost to the em- ployees would be calcualted on the prior year's actual cost to the Company. However, there is nothing in the proposal itself to indicate the dollar value of that cost.34 32 G.C. Exhs. 15 and 16. 33 G.C. Exh. 11, art. 22. 94 G.C. Exh. 15, sec. II, art. 22. GLOBE BUSINESS FURNITURE Although the prior agreement limited the Company to 15 temporary employees, after which it was required to advance the most senior temporary employees to proba- tionary or full-time status,85 the Company's 6 December proposal changed this to allow the Company 50 tempo- rary employees, after which the most senior temporary employees would obtain "seniority right" only in the event of layoff or recall.36 The Union's membership met on Sunday, 7 December, and voted to reject the Company's proposal but to con- tinue working and to send the negotiating committee back to the bargaining table. The issues preventing ac- ceptance were the Company 's proposal on new or tem- porary employees and on insurance. The lesser benefits for new or temporary employees would have created a "two-tier" employee system, and the insurance proposal was not understandable. Byrd read the latter proposal based on actual costs according to its terms, but told the members that the Company's proposed $75 charge was based on projected costs.37 D. Patterson 's Meeting with Employees on 4 or 5 December 1. Summary of evidence The complaint originally alleged that the Company at- tempted to bypass the Union and deal directly with em- ployees by soliciting them on 8 December to accept the Company's bargaining proposals . The complaint was amended at hearing to allege 13 and 15 December as ad- ditional dates of such activity. Further, the record con- tains evidence of company meetings with employees about the bargaining on other dates. Patterson testified that he had a "communications meeting" on 5 December with 16 to 20 "first shift em- ployees" in which he explained the Company's 1 Decem- ber proposal. The Company had received word from employees that they did not understand the proposal and believed that the Company was trying to cut benefits. At this meeting, various employees, including Randy She- • hane, told the Company that it should "take" its proposal "to the employees." Randy Shehane, a union vice president, testified on cross-examination that he had served "on something at the Company that is called a communications commit- tee," which held monthly meetings with management. On 1 December, the Company's maintenance superin- tendent called union members out of the shop and asked them whether they understood the Company's proposal of that day. At a "communications meeting" on 4 De- cember, there were various nonunion employees who had not attended union meetings and who stated that they did not understand the Company's 1 December pro- posal. Shehane himself said this, and agreed that it was possible that somebody at this meeting suggested that Patterson meet with employees and explain the proposal, although Shehane did not recall suggesting this himself. ae G.C. Exh. 2, art. 15, sec. 14. Sa G.C. Exh. 15, sec. II, art. 15, sec. 14. sT Testimony of Byrd and Jenkins. 847 2. Factual analysis I credit Shehane's testimony that a superintendent called union members out of the shop on 1 December and asked them whether they understood the Company's proposal. The record is not clear on the nature and function of the "communications committee." If it was a union com- mittee, there appears to be no reason why its meetings with management would be attended by employees who not only were not members of the committee, but were not even union members . It is also unclear whether there was one meeting on 4 December, one on 5 December, or two meetings. I conclude that on 4 or 5 December, Patterson ad- dressed "first shift employees," as he testified, who for some reason were present at a management meeting with the communications committee . At this meeting, Patter- son explained the Company's 1 December proposal. Some employees, including Shehane, suggested that he explain the proposal to employees. Patterson in fact had already done so at the meeting prior to receipt of this advice. E. The Events of Monday, 8 December-Patterson Is Further Meetings with Employees His Conversation with Byrd, and the Lockout 1. The meetings with employees a. Summary of the evidence Patterson and Bates held various meetings with em- ployees on 8 December. Shehane testified about a meet- ing with 50 to 60 press and maintenance employees that began about 10 a.m . and lasted about an hour. According to Shehane, Patterson said that the Union had "misled the membership," and that he wanted to explain the Company's proposal before the members voted on it.38 In a question-and-answer period following his speech, Patterson was asked why the employees had been re- quired to work the previous Saturday. His answer was that there had been "a threat of either a lockout or a strike." Somebody asked Patterson whether he would "lock the doors," and he replied that the Company would do so if necessary. Union Steward Walter Brinkley testified that he at- tended a meeting of about 30 employees that began about noon and lasted 30 to 45 minutes. Patterson read parts of the Company's proposal from a screen, and said that he wanted to make sure the employees understood it before they voted on it that night. Somebody asked why the Company had not answered Byrd's questions, and Patterson replied that he had done so to the best of his ability. The Company's vice president said that if the em- ployees "didn't vote on it that night that the gates would be locked."39 Sa Patterson obviously was unaware that the membership had already rejected the Company's proposal on the previous day. 39 On cross-examination, in response to a leading question concerning whether Patterson had threatened the employees in any way, Brinkley answered in the negative. 848 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Patricia Jones, a sewing machine operator, testified that she attended a meeting of about 30 cutting, sewing, and receiving employees that began about 2 p.m. Patter- son read the contract from a projector and told employ- ees that the Union either did not understand it or had not explained it accurately to the members. Patterson further stated that the employees did not realize how se- rious the problem was and that there could be a lockout. Union President Jenkins testified that he attended an employee meeting on 8 December at which Patterson "showed slides and read the contract." Jenkins asked Patterson whether the employee's one-half share of the insurance expenses was still $75, and Patterson replied that it was .40 Company Vice President Patterson denied that he told employees he was going to lock them out. However, he asserted that employees asked him whether there was going to be a strike or a lockout, and whether they could continue to work. According to Patterson, the fact that the employees asked these questions gave him the "option" to lock them out, and he so advised them. Pat- terson also asserted that the Company's insurance pro- posal on 6 December was based on the previous year's actual cost. However, he agreed on cross-examination that he did not give the Union the actual figures on unit costs prior to 8 December, and that the Company first asked for this information from Corroon & Black on 14 December. By letter from Corroon & Black dated 15 December 1986, the Company received the "actual cost (of insurance) for the bargaining unit employees" for the year ending 1 September 1986.41 b. Factual analysis I credit the testimony of the General Counsel's wit- nesses and conclude that the Company held employee meetings on 8 December during which Vice President Patterson read the Company's last contract proposal and said that the Union had misled the members about it, and stated that there might be a lockout. Further, as noted, the Union Steward Brinkley testified that at the meeting he attended, Patterson said the "gates would be locked" if the employees "didn't vote on it that night." I credit Brinkley's testimony and conclude that Patterson thereby communicated to employees the message that there would be a lockout if the employees did not vote favor- ably on the Company's proposal-it is obvious that he did not intend to close down the Company if the em- ployees accepted the last company proposal. I further conclude that the Company had not given the Union the actual cost of one-half of dependent cover- age at that time, and, indeed, did not even have it. I credit Jenkins' uncontradicted testimony that Patterson told employees on 8 December that the cost was still $75. Since this figure was based on Corroon & Black's "projected" cost figures in its 30 October letter'42 the 40 On cross-examination, Chief Steward Wilkinson , in response to a leading question, asserted that the Company's 6 December proposal did away with projected costs and was based on the prior year's actual cost. 41 G.C. Exh. 24. 42 Supra, fn. 9. clause in the Company's 6 December proposal-that the employee's share was based on actual cost-was either erroneous or incomplete.43 2. Byrd's conversation with Patterson and the lockout a. Summary of evidence Byrd was scheduled to go to Athens, Georgia, on other union business on 8 December. He affirmed that he called Patterson's office at 7 a.m. that day pursuant to his undertaking during the last negotiating session on 4 De- cember. According to Byrd, Patterson's secretary said that he was in meetings and was unavailable. While on the way to Athens, Byrd called again and spoke with Patterson's secretary about 9:30 or 10 a.m. Patterson was still busy. Finally, about 4:30 p.m., Byrd spoke with Pat- terson and advised him that the Union had rejected the last offer but was not threatening to strike. The members wanted to continue working and negotiating and there were other issues to discuss. Patterson replied that he was locking out the employees at midnight. Byrd re- sponded that the Company had other options such as im- plementing its final offer, and that the employees were not going to strike under any circumstances. This ended the conversation and Byrd immediately returned to Ten- nessee. Patterson testified that he "could not believe" that Byrd was "on the road to Athens," but agreed that Byrd tried to call him. Patterson contended that he tried to call back. Bryd finally reached Patterson at 4:30 p.m. Patterson agreed that Byrd said the men wanted to con- tinue working but denied that he said there would be no strike. According to Patterson, he told Byrd that he was not going to allow the employees to continue working because the Company had "tried to meet during this time and that time." Accordingly, the parties were at impasse, and the Company was exercising its rights to shut the plant down. Byrd offered nothing further, according to Patterson. The Company therefore shut the plant down at mid- night on 8 December . Its reasons, according to Patter- son, was that the Union had rejected the last company proposal, and that it was necessary "to bring this thing to a head . . . and place some pressure on Mr. Byrd to get back to Tennessee to negotiate a contract." Accord- ing to Byrd, the Company had never previously asserted that the parties were at impasse. b. Factual analysis and summary Patterson's admission that Byrd said the men wanted to continue working is the equivalent of saying that there would be no strike. Accordingly, I credit Byrd's testimo- ny on this issue. Although Byrd did not specifically sug- 43 It is clear from the foregoing that Wilkinson's testimony, cited above, fn. 40, is inaccurate. In cross-examination of Wilkinson on the Union's demand letter of 4 December (G.C. Exh. 14), counsel elicited a statement that that letter did not demand the actual dollar amounts of the insurance coverage . However, as shown above, the Union demanded this information on 2 or 3 December , Patterson gave the figure of $75 to $76, and agreed that it was "excessive." GLOBE BUSINESS FURNITURE gest the date of another bargaining session , I credit his testimony that he told Patterson that the union members wanted to continue negotiating, that there were other issues to discuss, and that the Company had options other than a lockout. In summary, the parties' last bargaining session on 4 December included the Union's written request for infor- mation and the Company's promise to supply it the next day. The Company did not do so. It tried but failed to arrange a meeting on 5 or 6 December. The union spokesman's reasons for his unavailablity on those days were communicated to the Company. The Company sub- mitted another proposal that the employees rejected be- cause of concern about temporary employees and insur- ance costs. On the next day, 8 December, Vice President Patterson spoke to employees, had the conversation with Byrd described above, and shut down the plant at mid- night. F. Communcations Between the Parties and the Meeting on 13 December 1. Summary of evidence Vice President Patterson wrote a letter to Byrd dated 9 December "confirming" their conversation on 8 De- cember that the membership had voted to continue to work without a contract and had rejected the Company's proposal. The letter further advised that the Company "plans to exercise its rights as to not operating the plant without a contract."44 Byrd wrote a letter dated 12 De- cember in which he affirmed that he had told Patterson that the employees were ready to work under the old contract, to continue negotiating, and were not threaten- ing to strike. Further, Byrd had offered to let the Com- pany implement its last offer pending further negotia- tions. The letter also accuses the Company of engaging in an illegal lockout and unfair labor practices.45 Byrd received a call on 10 or 11 December from the Federal mediator for the purpose of arranging a meeting. This was accomplished and the meeting was held at the usual place, the Gallatin City Electric Company. The Union was represented by the same individuals-Byrd, Jenkins, Wilkinson, and Dorothy White-while the Com- pany was represented by Patterson, Bates, and company counsel. The Federal mediator was also present. According to Byrd, the Union said that there was no sense in having a meeting if the Company did not pro- vide the information previously requested, in particular, information on the insurance costs and the turnover rate. Byrd read or delivered his letter of 12 December to Pat- terson, and reminded the Company of the Union's re- quests in Ray White's 2 September letter and the Union's 4 December communcation. Patterson stated that he would try to call Corroon & Black immediately and the meeting recessed. The Company's representatives re- turned to state that they were unable to get the informa- tion at that time, but might be able to get it by 15 De- 44 Q.C. Exh. 18. The letter was sent to a former address of Byrd's but he received it 2 days later. 45 Q.C. Exh. 17. 849 cember at which time they would call to arrange a meet- ing. Patterson agreed with most of Byrd's testimony, except that he testified that the Union's request for insur- ance information had a new element-whereas the Union had previously requested the "projected cost on the Company's total insurance program," it now wanted the "projected costs (for) the hourly bargaining unit." Pat- terson averred that Byrd was acting "very independ- ent."46 2. Factual analysis I credit Bryd's testimony regarding this meeting. Pat- terson's assertions that the Union had previously request- ed the cost of the Company's total insurance program, including the costs of nonunit employees , and first re- quested the "projected" costs pertaining to unit employ- ees on 13 December are inaccurate for the two reasons previously given-the Union had previously asked for the actual costs pertaining only to unit employees. G. Patterson 's Conversation with Wilkinson on the Evening of 13 December and Meetings at Shoney's on 15 December As indicated, the amended complaint alleges that the Company attempted to bypass the Union on 13 and 15 December as well as on an earlier date . Chief Steward Wilkinson testified that he and his wife were attending a company Christmas party on Saturday evening, 13 De- cember. After supper, Patterson came to their table and said that they had to "discuss this thing and get it re- solved." Wilkinson replied that he was there to have a good time and did not want to talk business-he was going to dance with his wife. A short time later, Patter- son came back and said that they "really needed to dis- cuss this." Wilkinson told Patterson that changes had to be made in the Company's insurance proposals and the hiring of temporary employees. The Union could not accept an ar- rangement whereby some employees paid for insurance and others did not-this would split the Union. Instead, Wilkinson suggested all the employees might pay a smaller amount and had in the past paid $3.08 weekly for dependent coverage. He also suggested that the Compa- ny delay in the hiring of temporary employees. Patterson said he would draw something up, and Wilkinson sug- gested that Patterson call him Monday morning at his home. Patterson's testimony agrees with this account on the essential points. Patterson called Wilkinson on the morning of 15 De- cember and met with him and Union President Jenkins for lunch at Shoney's. Company President Parks was present. The Company's representatives presented a rough draft of an agreement, and Jenkins again asked for the information the Union had requested. 46 Patterson also noted that Byrd was wearing a T-shirt of the United Furniture Workers, which was seeking representation at the Company's Sumner subsidiary. Byrd theorized that the Company wanted a poor con- tract in Hendersonville in order to influence the voters at Sumner in a forthcoming Board election on 19 December. 850 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The parties met again at Shoney's later the same day. In addition to the original union representatives, Doro- thy White was present on this occasion, while James Mills and a Corroon & Black representative were on the Company's side. The evidence is conflicting on the nature of insurance data presented by the Company. Chief Steward Wilkin- son testified that he was shown a Corroon & Black letter dated that day (15 December). The letter in fact shows insurance costs for unit employees for the prior 2 years and indicates that the cost had gone down. There is no reference to future projected costs.47 Nonetheless, Wil- kinson asserted that the Corroon & Black representative spoke of "projected" costs and said that "there was no way of nailing it down to a dollar and cents figure." Union President Jenkins testified that the costs on Cor- roon & Black's "first sheet" had gone down but "then the next year they went triple high, triple the difference with their records showing a trend of everything . . . going down and then all of a sudden it was going to triple." Jenkins told the Company that they "could get it cheaper from Aetna," said that he could never under- stand the Company's figures. Company Vice President Patterson testified that the Corroon & Black representa- tive, a "Mr. Beard .. . tried to explain again . . . that those were projected costs based off actual valuations." I conclude that at this meeting the Company did show Jenkins, Wilkinson, and White a Corroon & Black letter dated 15 December showing actual unit employee costs for 1985 and 1986.48 There is no credible evidence that the Union's representatives were given copies. The Com- pany also showed them a prior letter from the same firm projecting higher costs for 1987.49 The Corroon & Black representative responded to Jen- kins' objections in essence by arguing that they were ir- relevant, because the parties were then discussing a flat weekly rate of $3 for all employees. The Company also suggested other `options."50 Company President Parks asked the Union's representatives whether they could "handle Mr. Boyd." H. Meetings on 16 and 17 December and the Final Agreement The parties met again on 16 December. The Company was represented by Patterson, James Mills, and the Fed- eral mediator was again present. The Union's representa- tives were joined by Southern Council Executive Secre- tary Ray White. Union Vice President Randy Shehane was also present. White told the Company's representatives that he was the Union's exclusive bargaining agent, that he had des- ignated Byrd as his representative, and that the Compa- ny's meetings with other union representatives were un- lawful in the absence of Byrd. Patterson testified that is was the first time he had been so advised. The Union again asked for the requested information on insurance and the turnover rate. There is no evidence 47 G.C. Exh. 24. 48 Ibid. 4s R. Exh. 1. 50 G.C. Exh. 21. that the Company showed either of the two Corroon & Black letters (on insurance) at this meeting, and Byrd flatly denied that he ever received information on the actual cost of insurance for unit employees. The Compa- ny presented the Union with another proposal,51 and of- fered to allow the employees to return that night if the Union ratified it by midnight. Failing ratification, a new lockout would go into effect. Thereafter, the mediator informed the Union's representatives that the Company would no longer meet with them face to face. Nonetheless, negotiations were conducted on 17 De- cember, with the mediator acting as an intermediary be- tween the Union's representatives stationed at Shoney's Inn, and the Company's representatives at the Gallatin Electric Company. The Union presented various written questions that the mediator carried to the Company and to which the Company responded. Thus, the Union asked whether the Company intended to utilize tempo- rary employees as in the past in a manner not detrimental to full-time employees, and the Company answered af- firmatively. The Union asked questions about new hires and queried about other "options" that the Company had suggested in its 15 December meeting with the "local" committee. The Company responded with various monthly charges in lieu of the weekly insurance charge. 5 2 A final agreement was executed on 17 December. It provided, inter alia, for insurance coverage according to a benefit schedule for all employees who had completed 120 working days. All employees were to pay $3 weekly for insurance coverage. The agreement increases the number of temporary employees the Company may hire from 15 to 25,53 and continues to compensate them at wage rates less than that of regular employees.54 The employees returned to work on 18 December. Byrd credibly testified that the Union never received from the Company the number of single and family in- surance plans, as requested in Ray White's 2 September letter.55 Further, the Company did not provide docu- mentation on the number of bargaining unit employees or the number of turnovers, nor did it supply the factors used in calculating the "projected" increase in insurance costs-all requested in the Union's 4 December letter.56 Finally, the parties stipulated that the Company did not provide the Union with information on the names, ad- dresses, age, sex, telephone numbers, and' marital status of unit employees as requested in White's letter. 1. Legal Analysis and Conclusions 1. Alleged unlawful refusal to supply information The Board has stated the applicable legal standard as follows: 51 G.C. Exh. 19. 52 G.C. Exh. 21. 53 G.C. Exhs. 2 and 3; art. 15, sec. 14. 54 G.C. Exh. 3, Appendix A. 55 G.C. Exh. 4. 56 G.C. Exh. 14. GLOBE BUSINESS FURNITURE 851 It is well established . . . that Section 8(a)(5) of the Act imposes on an employer the duty to furnish a union, upon request, information relevant and nec- essary to enable it to intelligently carry out its statu- tory obligations as the employees' exclusive bar- gaining representative. And, under the standard rel- evancy as applied by the Board and the courts, it is sufficient that the Union's request for information be supported by a showing of "probable" or "po- tential" relevance.57 Florida Steel Corp., 235 NLRB 941, 942 (1978), It is clear that information concerning the cost of em- ployee insurance68 and other employee benefitsas is rele- vant and necessary in order to enable the bargaining rep- resentative to meet its statutory obligations . In this case the Union wished to compare the costs of the employer's self-insurance plan with the costs of plans offered by a union trust fund, and communicated this need to the Company in support of its request for information con- cerning the addresses, age, sex, telephone numbers, and marital status of employees, as well as the number of single and family insurance plans. The Board and the courts have concluded that this information must be pro- duced when requested by the Union pursuant to its statu- tory obligation.80 The Company's argument that the Union knew or could have learned the number of unit employees is irrel- evant, because even with this knowledge the Union could not have determined the actual costs of their insur- ance for the reasons given above. Although the Compa- ny did give the actual cost insurance of unit employees to the "local" committee on 15 December, this is no de- fense since the Company did not supply all the requested information, and that which it did no supply was not timely-the information was provided very late in the bargaining after repeated union requests ,81 and after the Company had engaged in a lockout. Further, as noted, the Company refused to supply fac- tors to justify an increase in its "projected" insurance costs during the first week of December . The Company's argument that this information was not needed on 15 De- cember since the parties were then considering a flat weekly charge is not persuasive for essentially the same reason that its late submission of factual insurance costs was inadequate-the Union required this information at least by the time of the early December bargaining, prior to the lockout. Although the parties did reach agreement on an insurance provision that incorporated a weekly ° T NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967). s° Hall Industries, 285 NLRB 391 (1987); American Marine Decking Systems, 277 NLRB 433 (1985); E I. duPont & Co., 271 NLRB 1245 (1984). 6° Del Rey Tortilleria, 275 NLRB 1486 (1985); Van Dorn Plastic Machin- ery Co., 265 NLRB 864 (1982). so Sgfeway Stores Y. NLRB, 691 F.2d 953 (10th Cis. 1982), enfg. 252 NLRB 1323 (1980); Action Automotive, 284 NLRB 251 (1987); Coalite. Inc., 278 NLRB 293 (1986); Emro Marketing Co., 272 NLRB 282 (1985), enfd. 786 F.2d 151 (7th Or. 1985); S-B Mfg. Co., 270 NLRB 485 (1984); Riveredge Hospital, 266 NLRB 1198 (1983), enfd. as modified 789 F.2d 524 (7th Cir. 1986); Grand Islander Health Care Center, 256 NLRB 1255 (1981). 61 Hall Industries. supra at fn. 57; Postal Service, 276 NLRB 1282 (1985). charge for all employees, the Union never received all the information that it needed to compare the employer's self-insurance plan with alternative union trust fund plans. The complaint also alleges Respondent 's unlawful re- fusal to supply documentation for its asserted turnover rate. The Union demended this information on 2 Decem- ber in response to the Company's stated plan to hire 100 temporary employees in the following year and the Company's "two-tier" employee system, under which temporary employees received lesser wages and benefits than other employees. When the Company responded on 3 December that the annual turnover rate was 40-50 em- ployees, union spokesman Byrd replied that this was "ri- diculously high," and the Union's letter of 4 December requested documentation of this figure . Byrd told the Company the reasons the Union needed this information and the latter promised to supply it the next day. How- ever, the information was not supplied. Instead, the Company's 6 December proposal raised the number of permissible temporary employees from 15 to 50, and al- tered the rights of senior temporary employees to progress to full employee status . The issue of temporary employees was one of the reasons that the employees, on 7 December, rejected the Company 's 6 December pro- posal, which was followed by the Company's lockout on 8 December. Finally, on 16 December, the Union again asked for the requested documentation on the Company's turnover rate. It was not supplied. Although the parties ultimately agreed on an increase in temporary employees from 15 to 25, the fact that the documentation on the turnover rate was never supplied contributed to the em- ployees' rejection of the Company's 6 December propos- al and thus to the lockout. The fact that the Company proposed an increase in the number of temporary employees who already worked at lesser wages and benefits , and proposed further diminish- ment of their rights, went to the core of the employer- employee relationship. The Union represented all the em- ployees, and it was its statutory obligation to explore the Company's asserted rationale for these proposals. Ac- cordingly, I conclude that under the broad standard of relevance governing union requests for information,62 the Union has supported its request for documentation on the turnover rate with a showing of at least probable or potential relevance. I therefore find that Respondent, by refusing to supply, or delaying in supplying, the Union with request- ed information on insurance costs of unit emplolyees, in- cluding present costs and the past 2 years' loss experi- ence, the number of single and family insurance plans, the factors used in determining a projected increase in costs, the employees' addresses, telephone numbers, sex, ages, and marital status, and documentation on previous employee turnover, thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.63 °S Florida Steel Corp., supra. See authorities cited in Leland Stanford Junior University, 262 NLRB 136, 138-139, enfd. 715 F.2d 473 (9th Cir. 1983). 03 I make no finding on evidence pertaining to refusal to supply other information where such refusal is not alleged in the complaint. 852 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. Alleged unlawful direct dealing with employees a. Factual summary The evidence shows that a company supervisor asked employees on 1 December whether they understood the Company's proposal of that day, and that Company Vice President Patterson explained the proposal to employees on 4 December. Some employees, including Union Vice President Shehane, suggested at that meeting that Patter- son explain the proposal to employees. Following sub- mission of another company proposal on 6 December and its rejection by the Union on 7 December (unknown to Patterson), the Company's vice president on 8 Decem- ber read details of the, last proposal to employees, de- clared that the Union had misled them about it, said that there might be a lockout, and communicated to employ- ees the message that the plant would be closed down if they did not vote favorably on the plan that night. After a regular negotiating session on 13 December, Company Vice President Patterson approached Chief Steward Wilkinson in the evening at a social occasion and said that the matter needed to be resolved. After an initial rejection by Wilkinson, Patterson again ap- proached him and the steward responded with sugges- tions that led to meetings 2 days later between the Com- pany and members of the Union's bargaining committee, absent Chief Spokesman Byrd. The Company's president asked the Union whether it could "handle Mr. Byrd." At this meeting, the Company for the first time showed Jen- kins, Wilkinson, and White documentation of the actual costs of insurance for unit employees, which had been going down, but continued to argue the validity of "pro- jections" for the next year showing that costs were going up. At the regular meeting the next day, 16 December, when Executive Secretary Ray White and Chief Spokes- man Byrd were present, the Union again asked for the insurance data but the Company did not provide it. b. Legal analysis It is well established that it is unlawful for an employ- er to negotiate directly with individuals when they have a bargaining representative. 64 However, Section 8(c) of the Act provides that the expression of views, argument, or opinion does not violate the Act "if such expressison contained no threat or force or promise of benefit."65 The Board has recently affirmed that "free and open discussion by all parties . . . affords the best chance for successful conclusion of negotiations . . . . Indeed, em- ployees ought to be fully informed as to all issues rele- vant to collective-bargaining negotiations and the parties' positions as to those issue."66 The mere fact that an em- ployer outlines to employees the details of contract pro- posals which he had presented to the union does not constitute a violation of the Act.67 In another case, the employer sought to inform employees of the employer's proposals to the union and said that the employees might strike if his proposals were not accepted. An actual strike 84 Medo Photo Supply Corp. v. NLRB, 321 U.S. 678, 683-685 (1944). es National Labor Relations Act, Sec. 8(c). 66 United Technologies Corp., 274 NLRB 1069, 1074 (1985). 87 Safelite Glass, 283 NLRB 929 (1987). voted had been conducted and the employees of other employers in a multiemployer association, of which the employer had formerly been a member, were actually on strike. The Board concluded that by these and other ac- tions the employer did not engage in direct dealing with employees or make coercive comments. Putnam Buick, 280 NLRB 868 (1986), enfd. sub nom. Machinists v. NLRB, 827 F.2d 557 (9th Cir. 1987). Nonetheless, the Board in Putnam Buick also noted that "violations of Section 8(a)(5) will be found if em- ployer communications with unit employees during col- lective-bargaining negotiations are coercive or invite direct bargaining between the employer and the employ- ees" (280 NLRB at 869).88 And, in a case where the em- ployer threatened discharge of employees if they did not vote in favor of the employer's proposed decrease in wages, the Board concluded that the employer had en- gaged in unlawful direct dealing. Chestnut Ridge Mining Corp., 268 NLRB 374 (1983). In the case at bar, union spokesman Byrd did say on 1 December that there would be a strike vote if the Com- pany did not extend the expiring contract. However, the contract was extended and there was no strike vote. Company Vice President Patterson told employees in one of his 8 December meetings that there was "a theat of either a lockout or a strike." A threat of a lockout could only have come from the Company. As for a strike, there had been no threat during the events follow- ing the last bargaining session on 4 December and the Company's submission of its 6 December proposal. Al- though union members on 7 December voted to continue working and negotiating, this was a vote on the Compa- ny's last proposal, not a strike vote. Finally, on 8 De- cember spokesman Byrd explicitly informed Company Vice President Patterson that there would be no strike despite the Union's rejection of the last proposal. Patter- son, however, communicated to employees on 8 Decem- ber the message that he would lock them out if they did not vote favorably on the Company 's last proposal that night. This was followed by an actual lockout at mid- night, and, in later negotiations, another lockout threat. I conclude that Patterson's statements to employees on 8 December that the gates would be locked if the em- ployees did not vote favorably on the Company's last proposal that night were coercive.69 These statements tended to force union members to accept the Company's last proposal, which they had already rejected in a union meeting the day before. Accordingly, I find that Re- spondent thereby engaged in unlawful direct dealing with employees in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.7 ° 68 In support of the principle set forth above, the Board cites Mashkin Freight Lines, 272 NLRB 427 (1984), and Friederich Truck Service, 259 NLRB 1294 (1982). 280 NLRB at 869 fn. 6. 69 Union Steward Brinkley's testimony on cross-examination, that Pat- terson had not threatened employees, is conclusory in nature is entitled to little weight in light of the credited evidence as to what Patterson actual- ly said. 70 Although Union Vice President Shehane was one of the employees who, on 5 December, suggested that the Company explain its 1 Decem- ber proposal to employees, he did not suggest, much less authorize it to Continued GLOBE BUSINESS FURNITURE As indicated, the amended complaint also alleges that the Company's conversation with Chief Steward Wilkin- son at the Christmas party on 13 December, and with Wilkinson, Local Union President Jenkins , and treasurer White on 15 December also constituted unlawful direct dealing with employees. There is little doubt that the Company preferred deal- ing with the local committee rather than with Byrd, and that it was Vice President Patterson who initiated the discussion with Wilkinson at the Christmas party. More- over, the Company showed the Corroon & Black "actual" insurance costs only to the local committee, and Company President Parks asked members of the commit- tee whether they could "handle" Byrd, who acted "very independent" according to Patterson. It is true that Southern Council Executive Secretary Ray White asked the Company to begin negotiations with Timothy Byrd. Nonetheless, the amended pleadings establish that "Local 2338, Southern Council of Industri- al Workers, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Join- ers of America, AFL-CIO" was the statutory bargaining representative of the unit employees.? t Wilkinson was not only chief steward of Local 2338, but also a member of the Union's negotiating committee. Although Patter- son approached Wilkinson at the party, it was the chief steward who advanced a formula to resolve the insur- ance issue and who suggested that Patterson call him the following Monday morning. Jenkins and White, who, with Wilkinson, met with company representatives on 15 December, were also members of the Union's negotiating committee and were union officers. Jenkins was the president and White the treasurer. In a case with similar facts, the union president claimed that he met with employer representatives only as an individual. Nonetheless, his actions and those of an- other committeeman, although "not actually negotia- tions, were representative in nature." BASF Wyandotte Corp., 276 NLRB 1576, 1584 (1985). In the case at bar, the Company's representatives and the local committee discussed at least one of the principal issues in the negoti- ations, the cost of insurance to.unit employees. I con- clude that Wilkinson's actions on 13 December, and his and those of Jenkins and White on 15 December, were representative in nature, and that the Company did not engage in lawful direct dealing with employees during those meetings. Accordingly, I shall recommend that this allegation be dismissed. 3. Alleged unlawful lockout Respondent argues that the 8 December lockout was lawful because the parties had reached impasse . No eco- nomic agreements had been reached and the Company "from December 4 through December 8 ... was unable to persuade Byrd to bring the negotiations back to the negotiating table."7E When Byrd talked with Patterson threaten employees in order to win acceptance of its proposal. Further, Patterson on 8 December discussed a later company proposal , not the one referred to by Shehane. The latter was not then a member of the bargaining committee and has not been shown to be speaking on behalf of the Union at that time. 71 G.C. Exba. 1(g) and 1(i). 72 R. Br. 34. 853 on 8 December, he "did not request any further negotia- tion session; offer any counterproposals ; or request an- other extenstion." In addition, he did not "specify any particular problems that the Union had with the Compa- ny's final offer."7 a Accordingly, Respondent argues, the parties were at impasse and it was entitled to lock out its employees "for a lawful purpose, namely to persuade the Union to return to the negotiating table and to consider the Com- pany's proposals."74 Further, neither the "absence of any reasonalbe fear of strike nor the absence of an impasse makes a lockout in support of bargaining demaed"s un- lawful."7 a Respondent's summary of the facts is not in accord- ance with the credited evidence. Thus, although the par- ties may not have reached agreement on economic issues, this was due "in part to the fact that they had agreed to discuss noneconomic issues first and had reached some agreement on these matters. It is also inac- curate to assert that the Union failed to state its disagree- ment with the Company's 6 December proposal . On that day, when union spokesman Byrd was informed that the Company had not delivered the promised information to Union President Jenkins, Byrd told Company Vice Presi- dent Patterson that the Company was bargaining in bad faith. It is clear that the Union's objection to the Compa- ny's "final proposal" was that it was not accompanied by relevant information that the Union needed in order to evaluate it, and that this objection was communicated to the Company. The Company's stated purpose of the lockout, to "per- suade the Union to return to the negotiating table," also distorts the facts. The Union had never left the bargain- ing table, except for brief and reasonable absences of union spokesman Byrd in connection with other union business. The Company knew that the last negotiating day in the first week of December would be 4 Decem- ber, a Thursday, because Byrd was scheduled to be out of town on other union business on Friday. It was agreed that Byrd would call the Company the following Monday, 8 December, to arrange another meeting. The Company then tried to compel a Saturday meeting, but Byrd was previously scheduled for two other meetings that day on the Union's negotiations with the Company. As agreed, Byrd tried to reach Patterson at 7 a.m. on Monday, but was informed that the Company's vice president was in meetings and was unavailable . After re- peated attempts throughout the day, Byrd finally reached Patterson at 4:30 p.m. and was informed that a lockout would begin at midnight. It is untrue, as asserted by the Company, that Byrd made no counterproposals. He suggested other alternatives to a lockout such as the Company's implementing its last offer pending negotia- tions. Although Byrd did not then request an extension of the contract, his original request for a 15-day exten- sion had previously been rejected by the Company in lieu of a shorter extension . The fact that Byrd was "on 73 Ibid. 14 Id. at 35. 75 Ind. The Company cites Harter Equipment, 280 NLRB 597 in. 6 (1986), and Birkenwald Distributing Co., 282 NLRB 954 (1987). 854 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the road to Athens" (on other union business) did not make him unavailable for a meeting on Tuesday-in fact, Byrd returned to Tennessee Monday night after learning about the lockout. The Board has stated the criteria for determining an impasse as follows: Whether a bargaining impasse exists is a matter of judgment. The bargaining history, the good faith of the parties in negotiations, the length of negotia- tions, the importance of the issue or issues as to which there is disagreement, the contemporaneous understanding of the parties as to the state of nego- tiations are all relevant factors to be considered in deciding whether an impasse in bargaining existed. Taft Broadcasting Co., 163 NLRB 475, 478 (1967), enfd. 395 F.2d 622 (D.C. Cir. 1968). Even if Respondent's unlawful conduct prior to the lockout were to be disregarded, it would be difficult to find a bona fide impasse on the facts in this case. During the 4 days of bargaining on economic matters that began on 1 December, the principal disagreement was not over the substantive nature of the Company's proposals, but, rather, with the factual data asserted by the Company to justify those proposals. This is insufficient to warrant a finding of impasse. "All items on which the parties had not agreed are not necessarily items causing an impasse; mere discussion of unresolved items falls short of unlaw- fully, president demands to the points of impasse." San- derson Farms, 271 NLRB 1477, 1479 (1984). In this case the only persistent demands were those of the Union for information-and even on this issue the Company did not refuse outright, but continuously promised to supply the information, only to default until late in the negotia- tions at which time it supplied only part of the informa- tion. Further, as indicated, the Company's asserted reason for the lockout-to bring the Union back to the bargaining table-is based on an erroneous factual premise. However, I need not base an impasse finding on the Taft Broadcasting criteria alone, because the Company did engaged in unlawful conduct prior to lockout-it en- gaged in direct dealing with employees and refused to supply relevant information demanded by the Union. It is well established that such conduct bars a finding of a bona fide impasse.76 Respondent has not advanced any business reason for the lockout-unless its asserted but invalid claim that it needed to get the Union back to the bargaining table can be called a business reason . The obvious object and tend- ency of the Company's threat to lockout its employees was to compel them to vote favorably on the Company's last proposal. By such threat, which formed a part of its unlawful direct dealing with employees, the Company thereby demonstrated its union animus. 7 7 Considering 78 Dahl Fish Co., 279 NLRB 1084 (1986); Coalite, Inc., 278 NLRB 293 (1986); Cowin & Co., 277 NLRB 802 (1985); Harvstone Mfg. Corp., 272 NLRB 939 (1984), enfd. as modified 785 F.2d 570 (7th Cir. 1986). 77 Bedford Cut Stone Co., 235 NLRB 629 (1978). these factors together with the Company 's unlawful re- fusal to give relevant information to the Union ,7 8 and the absence of a threat to strike '79 it is clear that the lockout was unlawful.80 The cases relied on by Respondent are inapposite.81 The issue in those cases was the legality of the hiring of temporary replacements after a lawful lockout, which followed the employer's presentation of legitimate bar- gaining positions. As the Board noted, "there is no evi- dence that the Respondent engaged in bad-faith bargain- ing before or after the lockout ." Harter Equipment, 280 NLRB 597 ( 1986). In contrast, Respondent violated Sec- tion 8(a)(5) prior to the lockout by its direct dealing with employees and by its refusal to supply information to the Union. Accordingly, following the above-cited cases where the lockout was preceded by unlawful bargaining, I conclude that the lockout was intended to compel em- ployee acceptance of Respondent's last bargaining pro- posal, and thus to undermine the Union . This conduct tended to discourage membership in the Union and was thus violative of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. In accordance with my findings above, I make the fol- lowing CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Globe Business Furniture, Inc. is an employer en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Local 2338, Southern Council of Industrial Work- ers, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. The following employees of Respondent constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All production and maintenance and tool room em- ployees, shipping and receiving employees, working group leaders and janitors employed by Respondent at its Hendersonville, Tennessee plant excluding all office clerical and plant clerical employees, drafts- men, guards, technical and professional employees and supervisors as defined under the National Labor Relations Act. 4. Since about 1963 and at all times material, the Union has been the designated collective-bargaining rep- resentative of the employees in the above-described ap- propriate unit, and has been recognized as such repre- sentative in prior collective-bargaining agreements with Respondent. 78 Bagel Bakers Council, 174 NLRB 622 (1969), enfd. as modified 434 F.2d 884 (2d Cir. 1970). 79 Quaker State Oil Refining Corp., 121 NLRB 334 (1958), enfd. 270 F.2d 40 (3d Cir. 1959). 80 See also American Cyanamid Co., 235 NLRB 1316, 1324 ( 1978); Siebler Heating & Air Conditioning, 219 NLRB 1124, 1131 (1975), revd. on other grounds 563 F.2d 366 (8th Cir. 1977); Crockett-Bradley, Inc., 212 NLRB 435, 441 (1974), enfd. 523 F.2d 449 (6th Cir. 1975). 81 Harter Equipment, Inc., 280 NLRB 597 (1986); Birkenwald Distribut- ing Co., 282 NLRB 954 (1987). GLOBE BUSINESS FURNITURE 855 5. By refusing to timely supply the Union requested in- surance costs of unit employees, including present costs and the past 2 years' loss experience; and by refusing to supply information on (a) the factors used in determining a projected increase in costs; (b) the number of single and family insurance plans, the employees' addresses, telephone numbers, sex, ages, and marital status; and (c) documentation of previous employee turnover , Respond- ent thereby committed unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 6. On 8 December 1986, by bypassing the Union and attempting to cause its employees to accept Respondent's last bargaining proposal, Respondent thereby committed an additional unfair labor practice in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. 7. On 8 December 1986, by locking out its employees until 18 December 1986 in an attempt to compel them and the Union to accept its last bargaining proposal, Re- spondent thereby discouraged membership in the Union and thus committed an unfair labor practice in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 8. The above-described unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 9. Respondent has not committed any unfair labor practices except as specified here. THE REMEDY Having found that Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be or- dered to cease and desist therefrom and take certain af- firmative actions designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Having found that Respondent unlawfully refused to supply the Union with timely information on the insur- ance costs of unit employees , including the present costs and the past 2 years' loss experience, I shall recommend that, on request, it forthwith gave such information to the Union. The fact that Respondent did submit such in- formation on 15 December 1986 is an insufficient reason for not requiring it do so again, since said submission was not timely, was given only to the local committee and not the full committee, and the documents them- selves were not supplied. Having found that Respondent unlawfully refused to give the Union information on factors used in projecting an increase in insurance costs of unit employees, the number of single and family insurance plans, the address- es, telephone numbers, sex, ages, marital status of such employees, and documentation on previous employee turnover, I shall recommend that Respondent be re- quired, on request, to submit such information to the Union. Having found that Respondent unlawfully locked out its employees from 8 to 18 December 1986, I shall rec- ommend that Respondent be ordered to make them whole for any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of the unlawful lockout, buy paying each of them a sum of money equal to the amount he or she would have earned during the lockout, less net interim earnings during such period, to be computed on a quar- terly basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and to pay into any employee benefit funds established by the last contract the sums that Respondent would otherwise have been required to pay absent its unlawful lockout, with in- terest on such payments as computed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).82 On the basis of these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommended" ORDER The Respondent, Globe Business Furniture, Inc., Hen- dersonville, Tennessee, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to timely supply Local 2338, Southern Council of Industrial Workers, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO as the statutory bargaining representative of the employees in the unit stated below, with the insurance costs, including the present costs and last 2 years' loss experience of the unit employees. The bargaining unit is: All production and maintenance and tool room em- ployees, shipping and receiving employees, working group leaders and janitors employed by Respondent at its Hendersonville, Tennessee plant excluding all office clerical and plant clerical employees , drafts- men, guards, technical and professional employees and supervisors as defined under the National Labor Relations Act. (b) Refusing to supply the above-named labor organi- zation with the factors used in determining a projected increase in insurance costs for 1987, the number of single and family insurance plans in the aforesaid unit, the unit employees' addresses, telephone numbers, sex, ages, and marital status, and documentation of previous employee turnover in the aforesaid unit. (c) Bypassing the above-named labor organization as the statutory representative of the employees in the above-stated unit, and attempting to cause the employees in that unit to accept its last bargaining proposal, or any bargaining proposal. (d) Discouraging membership in the above-stated labor organization, or any other organization, by locking out its employees in an attempt to compel them to accept its last bargaining proposal or any other bargaining propos- al, or by discriminating against them in any other manner with respect to their hire, tenure of employment, or terms and conditions of employment. 8 Under New Horizons, interest is computed at the "short-term Federal rate" for the underpayment of taxes as set out in the 1986 amendment to 26 U.S.C. § 6621. Interest accrued before 1 January 1987 (the effective date of the amendment) shall be computed as in Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977). sa 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 put- poses. 856 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (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 effecutate the policies of the Act. (a) On request, supply the above-named labor organi- zation with the insurance costs, including the present costs and the last 2 years' loss experience, of the employ- ees in the above-stated unit; the factors used in determin- ing a projected increase in unit insurance costs for 1987; the number of single and family insurance plans in the aforesaid unit; the unit employees' names, addresses, tele- phone numbers, sex, ages, and marital status, and docu- mentation of previous employee turnover in the aforesaid unit. (b) Make whole each employee whom it locked out from 8 until 18 December 1986, and pay into each em- ployee benefit fund established by the last contract the sum that Respondent would otherwise have been re- quired to pay, absent its unlawful lockout, except to the extent such sums have already been paid, in the remedy section 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 reimbursement due em- ployees under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at its plant at Hendersonville, Tennessee, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."84 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 26, after being signed by the Re- spondent's authorized representative, 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 Respond- ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (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. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be dis- missed insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not spe- cifically found. 84 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation- al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board." APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or- dered us to post and abide by this notice. WE WILL NOT refused to supply Local 2338, Southern Council of Industrial Workers, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, as the statutory rep- resentative of the employees in the unit listed below, with the insurance costs, including the present costs and last 2 years' loss experience, of the unit employees, the factors used in determining a projected increase in insur- ance costs for 1987, the number of single and family in- surance plans, the unit employees' addresses, telephone numbers, sex, ages, and marital status, and documentation of previous employee turnover in the unit. The unit is: All production and maintenance and tool room em- ployees, shipping and receiving employees, working group leaders and janitors employed by Respondent at its Hendersonville, Tennessee plant excluding all office clerical and plant clerical employees, drafts- men, guards, technical and professional employees and supervisors as defined under the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL NOT bypass the above-named labor organiza- tion, or any other labor organization, in an attempt to compel our employees to accept any of our bargaining proposals. WE WILL NOT lockout our employees in an attempt to compel them to accept our bargaining proposals, nor in any other way discriminate against them. 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, supply the above-named labor organization with information on all the items listed above. WE WILL make whole every employee whom we un- lawfully locked out from 8 to 18 December 1986, and WE WILL pay any required amounts into any employee benefit fund, to the extent we have not already done so, with interest. GLOBE BUSINESS FURNITURE, INC.