Toledo 5 Auto/Truck Plaza, Inc

TOLEDO 5 AUTO/TRUCK PLAZA Toledo 5 Auto/Truck Plaza, Inc and Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Union Local No 20, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware housemen and Helpers of America , AFL-CIO 1 Case 8-CA-20261 September 30 1988 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND CRACRAFT On March 30 1988 Administrative Law Judge Russell M King Jr issued the attached decision The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief and the General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief The Respondent filed a brief in reply to the General Counsels exceptions and the Charging Party filed briefs in reply to the Re spondent s and the General Counsel s exceptions The National Labor Relations Board has delegat ed its authority in this proceeding to a three member panel The National Labor Relations Board has consid ered the decision and the record in light of the ex ceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge s rulings findings 2 and conclusions to modify the remedy 3 and to adopt the recommend ed Order as modified 4 i On November 1 1987 the Teamsters International Union was read mated to the AFL-CIO Accordingly the caption has been amended to reflect that change 8 The judge inadvertently erred in fn 9 of his decision and par 2(c) of the recommended Order in describing the information being requested by the Union The date June 26 1986 should be June 24 1986 The recommended Order has been modified to correct the date In adopting the judge s finding that Dons Dunlap was given an unrea sonable time to consider the reinstatement offer given her by the Re spondent we note that our decision does not qualify our holding in Ester line Electronics Corp 290 NLRB 833 (1988) There we held inter alia that when a discnmmatee receives a letter that unconditionally offers re instatement and that also states a report back date we will not find the offer invalid simply because the specified reporting date appears unrea sonably short However the offer will be treated as invalid if the letter on its face makes it clear that reinstatement is dependent on the employ ee s returning on the specified date or if the letter otherwise suggests that the offer will lapse if a decision on reinstatement is not made by that date Here by letter dated May 26 1987 the Respondent informed Dunlap that she was being recalled to work on May 29 1987 at 3 p in The letter stated If you fail to report within the scheduled time your recall rights will be terminated The letter sent by certified mail was received by Dunlap on May 28 1987 Thus Dunlap had only I day to consider the reinstatement offer and the letter expressly conditioned the offer on compliance with the unreasonably short report back date While Dunlap-under Esterline-need not have attempted to respond to this in valid offer she did so Accordingly the judge s analysis regarding the unreasonableness of the time afforded Dunlap is sound 3 We modify the judge s remedy to include a provision that backpay be computed in accordance with the formula in F W Woolworth Co 90 NLRB 289 (1950) 4 We shall modify par 1(c) of the recommended Order to correct an inadvertent error 319 We do not adopt the judge s finding that the Re spondent violated Section 8(a)(5) by refusing the Union s September 8 1986 request for information As the judge himself noted in the background sec tion of his decision substantiated evidence sup ported the Respondents position that it was under no obligation to bargain with the Union as of Sep tember 1986 Accordingly the Respondents refusal to provide information at that time was not an unfair labor practice Thereafter the Union won a Board election and was certified as the collective bargaining represent ative of the unit employees On June 8 1987 the Union reaffirmed its September 8 1986 request and also sought certain additional information We agree with the judge that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) by failing to furnish the information requested on June 8 1987 and we shall modify the judge s Conclusions of Law accordingly We shall also modify paragraph 2(c) of the judge s recom mended Order to include the additional items re quested on June 8 1987 AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 4 Substitute the following for Conclusions of Law 4 By failing and refusing to furnish the Union the information it requested on June 8 1987 the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Re spondent Toledo 5 Auto/Truck Plaza Inc Stoney Ridge Ohio its officers agents successors and assigns shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified 1 Substitute the following for paragraph 1(c) (c) In any like or related manner interfering with restraining or coercing employees in the ex ercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act 2 Substitute the following for paragraph 2(c) (c) Furnish to Teamsters Chauffeurs Warehou semen and Helpers Union Local No 20, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters Chauffeurs Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer ica AFL-CIO the following information The name address telephone number social security number date of hire job classifica tion wage rate and fringe benefits for each employee performing bargaining unit work from June 24 1986 to the present all bargain 291 NLRB No 46 320 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing unit positions that have been filled since July 16 1986 as well as the name address telephone number and social security number for the individual filling the position all un filled bargaining unit positions the name ad dress telephone number and social security number for each individual hired or recalled to perform bargaining unit work after May 29 1987 as well as the wage rate and fringe bene fits that are or will be provided to such indi viduals 3 Substitute the attached notice for that of the administrative law judge WE WILL furnish the Union the information it re quested that is relevant and necessary to its role as the exclusive bargaining representative of the unit employees TOLEDO 5 AUTO/TRUCK PLAZA INC Paul Lund Esq for the General Counsel Terrance L Ryan Esq and David L 0 Connell Esq (Marshall & Melhorn) of Toledo Ohio for the Re spondent Employer John M Roca Esq (Gallon Kainiz and Iorio Co LPA) of Toledo Ohio for the Charging Union DECISION 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 ordered us to post and abide by this notice WE WILL NOT discriminate against employees by terminating them after tendering to them mad equate and invalid offers of reinstatement WE WILL NOT refuse the request of Teamsters Chauffeurs Warehousemen and Helpers Union Local No 20 affiliated with International Brother hood of Teamsters Chauffeurs Warehousemen and Helpers of America AFL-CIO for information re garding individuals who have performed or are performing bargaining unit work since June 24 1986 to the present and further regarding unfilled bargaining unit positions WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with restrain or coerce you in the exer cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act WE WILL offer Doris Dunlap immediate and full reinstatement to her former position or if that pose tion no longer exists to a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to her seniority or original date of hire or any other rights or privi leges previously enjoyed and WE WILL make her whole for any loss of earnings and other benefits she may have suffered by reason of our discrimina tion against her less any net interim earnings plus interest WE WILL notify Doris Dunlap that we have re moved from our files all references to her termina tion and notify her specifically that this has been done and that this unlawful action will in no way be used against her in the future STATEMENT OF THE CASE RUSSELL M KING JR Administrative Law Judge This case was heard on 19 and 20 January 1988 in Toledo Ohio The initial charge was filed against Toledo 5 Auto/Truck Plaza Inc (the Company) on 24 July 1987 by the Charging Union Teamsters Chauf feurs Warehousemen and Helpers Union Local No 20 affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters Chauffeurs Warehousemen and Helpers of America (the Union) Based on the charge a complaint was issued on 4 September 1987 by the Regional Director for Region 8 of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) on behalf of the Board s General Counsel i The complaint alleges that the Company discharged employee Doris Dunlap in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act and further alleges that the Company failed and refused to furnish certain information requested by the Union in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act 2 The Company defends on the grounds that employee Dunlap failed to timely respond to a recall letter after an eco nomic strike had ended and thus was legitimately denied later employment and removed from the Company s recall list Regarding the information request the Com pany argues that the General Counsel failed to prove The term General Counsel when used herein will normally refer to the attorneys in the case acting on behalf of the General Counsel of the Board through the Regional Director 2 The pertinent parts of the Act (29 U S C § 151 et seq) read as fol lows Sec 8(a) It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer- (1) to interfere with restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 (3) by discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization (5) to refuse to bargain collectively with the representative of em ployees Sec 7 Employees shall have the right to self organization to form join or assist labor organizations to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection TOLEDO 5 AUTO/TRUCK PLAZA that the Union s requests for information were actually refused 3 On the entire record including my observations of the demeanor of the witnesses and after due consideration of the briefs filed by the General Counsel counsel for the Union and counsel for the Company 4 I make the fol lowmg5 FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION AND THE LABOR ORGANIZATION The pleadings admissions and evidence in the case es tablish the following jurisdictional facts At all times ma terial the Company an Ohio corporation with an office and place of business in Toledo Ohio maintained a facil ity in Stoney Ridge Ohio where it has been engaged in the operation of a restaurant general store auto and truck service garage and a fueling station This facility is the only facility involved in this case and the employees involved were only those employed in the fuel service control center and garage 6 In the course and conduct of its business operations at Stoney Ridge Ohio the Company derived gross revenues annually in excess of $500 000 and received goods and materials valued in excess of $50 000 directly from points located outside the State of Ohio As alleged and admitted I find that the Company is now and has been at all times material an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2) (6) and (7) of the Act Also as alleged and admitted I find that the Union is now and has been at all times material a labor organiza tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act H At the hearing in this case and based primarily on testimonial evi dence elicited from General Manager Snyder during the hearing the General Counsel moved to amend the complaint by adding an additional alleged violation of Sec 8 (a)(1) and (3) of the Act as follows Since on or about 29 May 1987 Respondent discriminated against employees concerning their recall right as to the position of cashier by failing and refusing to consider them for recall because they en gaged in activity set forth in paragraph 8(B) After hearing argument I denied the motion In their posthearing briefs the General Counsel and counsel for the Union request that I reconsider that denial and grant the amendment I have reconsidered the motion to amend and I again deny the same 4 The deadline for the filing of briefs was set on 24 February 1988 On or about 24 March 1988 counsel for the Company filed a motion for leave to file a reply brief That motion is denied 5 The facts found herein are based on the record as a whole and on my observation of the witnesses The credibility resolutions have been de rived from a review of the entire testimonial record and exhibits with due regard for the logic of probablity the demeanor of the witnesses and the teaching of NLRB v Walton Mfg Co 369 U S 404 408 (1962) As to those testifying in contradiction of the findings herein their testimony has been discredited either as having been in conflict with the testimony of credible witnesses or because it was in and of itself incredible and unwor thy of belief All testimony and evidence regardless of whether men tioned or alluded to has been reviewed and weighed in light of the entire record 6 The Union represents the Company s employees at Stoney Ridge Ohio in the following unit All full time and regular part time fuel service control center and garage employees including mechanics service tire and parts em ployees employed by Toledo 5 Pure Truck Plaza Inc 1-280 and Libbey Road Stoney Ridge Ohio 43463 but excluding all motel and restaurant employees confidential employees professional employ ees guards and supervisors as defined in the Act as amended and all other employees II THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES 321 A Brief Background The Company and the Union have had a collective bargaining relationship with each other since approxi mately 1963 Thereafter a series of collective bargaining agreements were entered into the last being a 3 year agreement that expired 23 June 1986 Prior to said expi ration the Union and the Company had engaged in un successful negotiations and on 24 June 1986 the Union commenced an economic strike that lasted until 15 July 1986 when the Union made an unconditional offer for the return to work of all striking employees After the strike none of the striking employees actually returned to work because they had been replaced by the Compa ny On 8 September 1986 the Union wrote the Company requesting certain detailed information regarding replace ment employees and their positions On or about 12 Sep tember 1986 the Company based on substantiated evi dence concluded that the Union no longer represented a majority of the employees involved and withdrew its recognition of the Union further declining to execute a collective bargaining agreement with the Union and also refusing to provide the information that had been re quested by the Union in its letter of 8 September 1986 Consistent with these actions on 6 October 1986 the Company filed a decertification petition with the Board (Case 8-RM-927) and pursuant to that petition a Board conducted election was held on 21 May 1987 The Union received a majority of the votes at that election and the Company did not file postelection objections thus the Board certified the Union as the collective bargaining representative of the unit employees on 29 May 1987 On 8 June 1987 the Union renewed its 8 September 1986 in formation request and expanded the request to apply to employees hired after 29 May 1987 Following the strike that ended 15 July 1986 the Union had filed a number of unfair labor practice charges against the Company but none were found to have merit except for the charge in volved in this case Employee Doris Dunlap was the first striking employee who was recalled to work which oc curred by letter dated 26 May 1987 She was to report to work the afternoon of 29 May 1987 ' but for various stated reasons she did not return to work on that date and as a result the Company in effect terminated Dunlap by removing her from the recall list Regarding the re quests for information as indicated earlier the Union claims that to date it has never received a response or any of the requested information B The Recall and Discharge of Employee Doris Dunlap Employee Dunlap commenced work for the Company in April 1968 and she worked as a cashier continuously until the strike on 24 June 1986 She was a union member and supporter and was number one on the se niority list at the time of the strike During much of her employment Dunlap had served as the Union s steward or acting steward and throughout the period she had r All dates hereafter will be in 1987 unless otherwise stated 322 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD filed some 30 to 35 grievances on behalf of employees She was also on the picket line during the strike By letter dated 26 May the Company wrote to Dunlap in forming her that she was being recalled to work on 29 May at 3 p in That letter was sent by certified mail and according to Dunlap her daughter picked up the letter she thought on 27 May indicating that she actually re ceived the letter on 28 May On receipt she immediately contacted Union Business Representative Robert Robasz kiewicz informing him of the recall letter Robasz kiewicz then asked Dunlap to contact the Company and set up a meeting at the Company s facility prior to the time of the recall (29 May 3 p m) Dunlap did so and the meeting was set for 1 p in on 29 May Present at the meeting was Union Business Agent Robaszkiewicz Dunlap Union Business Agent Robert L Lemle Com pany President (and owner) Melvin Berman Company General Manager Michael J Snyder and the Company s attorney in this case Terrance L Ryan 8 Subsequent to the strike Dunlap had obtained other employment at a slightly lesser salary and with fewer benefits At the meeting on 29 May Dunlap expressed great concern in leaving her present employment on such short notice and she and Robaszkiewicz initially asked for a 2 week extension to report to the Company for work The Company refused that extension where upon Dunlap asked for a 1 week extension and the Com pany also refused that request insisting that she report to work by 3 30 p m that day After further discussions re garding certain of the terms and conditions under which Dunlap would return to work the meeting ended and General Manager Snyder testified that at the end of the meeting his impression was that Dunlap would return and report for work at 3 30 p in Robaszkiewicz and Dunlap concede in testimony that they left this impres sion at the end of the meeting The meeting over Dunlap and Robaszktewicz returned to the Union s head quarters Dunlap still concerned about the short notice to her current employer With such lingering concern on arriving at the union hall Dunlap telephoned General Manager Snyder This conversation was monitored by Robaszkiewicz and Union Agent Lemle on extension phones without the knowledge of Snyder During the conversation Dunlap offered to report the following day but Snyder again refused any extension and told Dunlap that if she did not report that afternoon as requested she could consider such a failure as a termination Dunlap did not so report was never again recalled and thus the charge in this case was subsequently filed on 24 July Snyder s testimonial excuse for giving Dunlap such short notice included the fact that his staff was already thin that summer vacations were approaching and that the Company had adopted a new system in the control center that required some retraining for Dunlap and that Friday was the best day for such training because of the volume of business on Fridays However Snyder himself conceded that he as an employer would have preferred at least 1 week s notice Dunlap s position in fact was not filled according to Snyder until 2 July 8 Testifying in this case was Robaszkiewicz Dunlap Berman Lemle and Snyder Attorney Ryan did not testify Economic strikers who unconditionally apply for rein statement at a time when their positions are filled by per manent replacements remain employees and are entitled to full reinstatement on the departure of replacements unless they have acquired regular and substantially equivalent employment or unless the employer can es tablish the failure to offer reinstatement was for legiti mate and substantial business reasons Laidlaw Corp 171 NLRB 1366 (1968) enfd 414 F 2d 99 (1970) cert denied 397 U S 920 (1970) For an offer of reinstatement to be valid it must provide adequate time for consideration by the employee based on the circumstances of each indi vidual case National Tape Corp 187 NLRB 321 (1970) Penco Enterprises 216 NLRB 734 (1975) Murray Prod ucts 228 NLRB 268 (1977) enfd 584 F 2d 934 (9th Cir 1978) I find the Company s offer of reinstatement to employ ee Dunlap in this case to be totally inadequate and thus defective and invalid due to the lack of a reasonable time for Dunlap to decide whether she wished to return to work and the unreasonably short notice she would have been required to give to her current employer The Company I find lacked substantial and legitimate bust ness reasons for such short notice especially in light of General Manager Snyder s own testimony that he (him self) would have preferred at least a week s notice and the fact that Dunlap s position was not filled for over a month Accordingly I find and conclude that the Com pany s termination of employee Dunlap on her refusal to accept an inadequate and invalid offer of reinstatement was discriminatory and violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act C The Requests for Information On 8 September 1986 the Union requested by letter detailed information regarding replacement employees and their positions 9 Soon thereafter the Company with drew its recognition of the Union and the information request was not complied with There followed a decer tification proceeding a Board conducted election and ultimately a certification of the Union by the Board on 29 May 1987 By letters dated 4 8 and 16 June the Union renewed its 8 September 1986 information request and in its letter of 8 June extended the request to apply to replacement employees hired after 29 May 10 The re The requested information consisted essentially the following The name address telephone number social security number date of hire job classification wage rate and fringe benefits for each em ployee performing bargaining unit work from June 26 1986 to the present all bargaining unit positions that have been filled since July 16 1986 as well as the name address telephone number and social security number for the individual filling the position and all unfilled bargaining unit positions 10 On 4 June and in separate letters both the Union and counsel for the Union wrote to counsel for the Company again requesting a response to the Unions 8 September 1986 information request On 8 June the Company s attorney responded by letter to the 4 June letter from the Union s counsel stating that The Company will prepare and pro vide relevant information concerning bargaining unit members in the near future On 16 June counsel for the Union again wrote to the Company s counsel renewing the request TOLEDO 5 AUTO/TRUCK PLAZA 323 newed and expanded request has not been complied with Union Business Representative Robaszkiewicz testi fled that the Company refused to furnish the requested information by letter dated 19 August 1987 11 The Com pany does not dispute the Union s right to the requested information but contends that the General Counsel has not met his burden of proof by showing that the requests were actually refused by the Company further arguing that the record in the case contains merely an allegation of Company refusal The Company also contends that the Unions September 1986 information request is not chargeable in this case because it is barred by the 6 month limitation period found in Section 10(b) of the Act 12 The information has been requested has been the sub ject of a charge filed by the Union with the Board and the resultant complaint in this case and yet to date the information has not been furnished to the Union by the Company I find that the Company by its own actions (or inaction) has failed and refused to comply with the Union s request 13 As to the limitation period in Section 10(b) of the Act the Union renewed its request in June well within the 6 month limitation period 14 I find in this case that in refusing to comply with the Union s informa tion requests contained in its letter of 8 September 1986 as renewed and modified in June 1987 the Company vio lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act as alleged in the complaint June 1986 to the present and further regarding unfilled bargaining unit positions (5) The unfair labor practices found in paragraphs 3 and 4 above affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent Employer has com mitted the above unfair labor practices I will recom mend that it be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take other affirmative actions designed to effectu ate the purposes and policies of the Act including the posting of an appropriate notice I shall recommend that the Respondent Employer offer Dons Dunlap immediate reinstatement to her former position or if that position no longer exists to a substantially equivalent position without prejudice to the date of her original hiring or other rights and privileges Additionally I shall recom mend that the Respondent Employer be ordered to make whole Doris Dunlap by paying to her a sum of money equal to the amount she normally would have earned from 29 May 1987 or from the date her position became open if earlier to the date she is validly offered rein statement with interest as computed in New Horizons for the Retarded 283 NLRB 1173 (1987) 15 On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record 16 I issue the following recommend ed17 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 The Respondent Employer Toledo 5 Auto/Truck Plaza Inc is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2) (6) and (7) of the Act 2 The Charging Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 3 The Respondent Employer on 29 May 1987 violat ed Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by terminating em ployee Dons Dunlap after she refused an inadequate and invalid offer of reinstatement 4 The Respondent Employer since 8 September 1986 has violated and continues to violate Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act in refusing the Charging Union s request for information regarding individuals that have per formed or are performing bargaining unit work since 24 11 For reasons unknown this letter was not introduced into evidence 12 Sec 10(b) of the Act provides inter alga no complaint shall issue based upon any unfair labor practice occur ring more than six months prior to the filing of the charge with the Board 13 As conceded by the Company I find the requested information to be necessary and relevant to the Union s duties responsibilities and per formance as the exclusive collective bargaining agent of the employees in the involved unit 14 Par 9(A) of the complaint refers to the Union s letter of 8 Septem her 1986 and par 9 (B) alleges that on 8 June 1987 the Union reaf firmed its earlier request and requested additional information Pars 10 and 12 of the complaint allege the failure to comply with the requests to be violations of Sec 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act During the hearing coun sel for the Company moved to dismiss those portions of pars 10 and 12 of the complaint dealing with the 8 September 1986 request as being beyond the limitation period contained in Sec 10(b) of the Act That motion was not acted on during the hearing and on the record Consist ent with my findings and conclusions that motion is denied ORDER The Respondent Employer Toledo 5 Auto/Truck Plaza Inc Stoney Ridge Ohio its officers agents suc cessors and assigns shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Discriminating against employees by terminating them after tendering to them inadequate and invalid offers of reinstatement (b) Refusing the request of Teamsters Chauffeurs Warehousemen and Helpers Union Local No 20 affili ated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters Chauffeurs Warehousemen and Helpers of America AFL-CIO for information regarding individuals that have performed or are performing bargaining unit work since 24 June 1986 to the present and further regarding unfilled bargaining unit positions 15 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 US 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) 16 On or about 25 March 1988 counsel for the Union filed a motion to correct the transcript The motion is denied The words and figures of the witness were reported accurately and to the best of the reporters ability The remaining portions of the record (including the evidence) do not in my opinion justify an interpretation different than that officially reported 17 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 324 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (c) In any like or related manner interfering with re straining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Offer employee Dons Dunlap immediate reinstate ment to her former job or if that job is no longer avail able to a substantially equivalent job without prejudice to her original date of hire or other rights and make her whole for any loss of earnings she may have suffered by reason of the discrimination against her in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision (b) Remove from its files any reference to the unlawful termination or discharge of Doris Dunlap and notify her that this has been done and that her discharge will not be used as a basis for future personnel action (c) Furnish to Teamsters Chauffeurs Warehousemen and Helpers Union Local No 20 affiliated with Interna tional Brotherhood of Teamsters Chauffeurs Ware housemen and Helpers of America AFL-CIO the fol lowing information The name address telephone number social secure ty number date of hire job classification wage rate and fringe benefits for each employee performing bargaining unit work from June 26 1986 to the present all bargaining unit positions that have been filled since July 16 1986 as well as the name ad dress telephone number and social security number for the individual filling the position and all un filled bargaining unit positions (d) Preserve and on request make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying all pay roll records social security payment records timecards personnel records and reports and all other records nec essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order (e) Post at its facility in Stoney Ridge Ohio copies of the attached notice marked Appendix i 8 Copies of the notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 8 after being signed by the Respondents author ized representative shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecu tive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted Rea sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered defaced or covered by any other material (f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re spondent has taken to comply 19 9 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals the words in the notice reading Posted by Order of the Nation al Labor Relations Board shall read Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board 19 The General Counsel initially requested in the complaint that the Order include a visitatonal clause authorizing the Board for compliance purposes to obtain discovery from the Respondent in the manner provid ed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under the supervision of the United States court of appeals enforcing this Order However this re quest was withdrawn in the General Counsels brief