Weinreb Management

428 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Weinreb Management and 32B-32J, Service Em- ployees International Union, AFL-CIO Weinreb Management and Weinreb Management and its alter ego Barniv Security and Mainte- nance Corporation and 32B-32J, Service Em- ployees International Union , AFL-CIO. Cases 2-CA-22007 and 2-CA-22203 January 17, 1989 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND HIGGINS On August 4, 1988, Administrative Law Judge Eleanor MacDonald issued the attached decision. The Respondents filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief sup- porting the decision of the judge. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions' and to adopt the recommended Order as modified. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Re- spondents, Weinreb Management and its alter ego, Barniv Security and Maintenance Corporation, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified. 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(b). "(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act." 2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a). "(b) Permit the Union to conduct an audit of Barniv Security and Maintenance Services' payroll ' We find First Class Maintenance, 289 NLRB 484 (1988), cited by the Respondent, distinguishable. There, the Board concluded that, even though there was substantial identity of business purpose, operation, equipment , and customers between the two entities , no alter ego relation- ship existed . This conclusion was based on the Board's additional finding that supervision of the two entities was not substantially identical, the owners of one did not retain financial control over the operations of the other, and there was no unlawful motivation in the creation of the second business. By contrast, the evidence in the instant case is clear that the two entities are commonly supervised by the trio of Leon Weinreb, Jacob Weinreb , and Abraham Reiss, that the three exercise financial con- trol interchangeably over both entities, and that the creation of Barniv Security and Maintenance Corporation has allowed Weinreb Manage- ment purposefully to evade its responsibilities under the Act. According- ly, we find the judge 's conclusion that an alter ego relationship existed between Weinreb and Barniv to be fully supported by the record evi- dence. records and social security reports with respect to those classifications of employees covered by the collective-bargaining agreement between Weinreb Management and the Union to determine compli- ance with the collective-bargaining agreement." 3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the administrative law judge. 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. Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights. To organize To form, join, or assist any union To bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choice To act together for other mutual aid or pro- tection To choose not to engage in any of these protected concerted activities. The bargaining unit is all service employees. WE WILL NOT promise our employees better working conditions if they refrain from seeking the Union's representation. WE WILL NOT bypass the Union and deal direct- ly with our employees. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Sec- tion 7 of the Act. WE WILL permit the Union to inspect our books to see if we are complying with the collective-bar- gaining agreement and furnish the Union necessary information it has requested. WEINREB MANAGEMENT AND ITS ALTER EGO BARNIV SECURITY AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES Larry Singer, Esq., for the General Counsel. Morris Tuchman, Esq., of New York, New York, for the Respondent. Ira A. Sturn, Esq. and John J. Leo, Esq. (Manning, Raab, Dealy & Sturn), of New York, New York, for the Union. 292 NLRB No. 54 WEINREB MANAGEMENT 429 DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE ELEANOR MACDONALD, Administrative Law Judge This case was tried in New York, New York on 2 and 11 February 1988 The consolidated complaints allege that Respondent Wemreb, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act, promised its employees better work ing conditions to refrain from seeking the Union s repre sentation and bypassed the Union and dealt directly with its employees and that Weinreb and Barniv, alter egos and a single employer, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act refused to permit the Union to inspect Barniv payroll records and refused to provide the Union with information relating to the relationship between Weinreb and Barniv Respondent denies the alter ego and single employer allegations and denies the other ma terial allegations of the complaint On the entire record including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses and after due consideration of the bnefs filed by the parties, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION Respondent Weinreb management, a New York corpo ration engaged in ownership and management of apart ment buildings, annually derives gross revenue in excess of $500,000 an purchases materials valued in excess of $5000 directly in interstate commerce The parties agree and I find that Respondents are employees engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2) (6), and (7) of the Act and that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act II THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A Background' The parties agree that for many years the Union and Weinreb Management have been praties to a series of collective bargaining agreements The agreement rele vant to the instant case had a term from 21 April 1985 to 20 April 1988 and covered an appropriate unit of service and maintenance employees including handypersons ele vator operators guards doorpersons, porters/watch persons, watchpersons, security porters security employ ees, fire safety directors, exterminators and all other service employees except superintendents Article I section 10 of the agreement provided that the Union had the right to inspect the Employers social security re ports and all payroll records to determine if the agree ment was being complied with In order to understand the relevant facts it is neces sary to clarify the family relationship of the individuals mentioned in the instant case A family tree would show ' There were no questions of credibility raised with respect to the tests mony of most of the witnesses The testimony of Jacob Weinreb was changed in several respects after he reviewed certain documents In those instances I have credited the later testimony because the earlier testimo ny relating to matters such as payment for clerical services and the sign mg of checks was clearly inaccurate that Wolf Weinreb and Sarah Weinreb are the parents of Leon Weinreb Leon Weinreb and his wife Sabina Wein reb are the parents of Isabelle Weinreb Marie Weinreb Reiss (married to Abraham Reiss) and Jacob Weinreb The above named family members own about 20 apart ment buildings in New York City as partners or as joint ventures The percentage of ownership interest held by each family member vanes in each building Among the buildings owned in joint ventures or partnerships by members of the Weinreb family are the following 145 East 92nd Street 46 East 91st Street 215 East 80th Street 110 East End Avenue Respondent Weinreb Management manages these four apartment buildings 2 The Union bargains with the Realty and Advisory Board on Labor Relations (RAB) a management associa tion representing apartment buildings, and Respondent Wetnreb Management has assented to the terms of the master collective bargaining agreement for the four above listed buildings Weinreb Management is a pertnership of Wolf Wein reb, Sarah Weinreb, and Leon Weinreb The partnership does not own any buildings At the above listed build tugs, Weinreb Management employs superintendents and it employes service and maintenance employees in the unit represented by the Union pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement as issue Barniv Security and Maintenance Service is a partner ship of Jacob Wetnreb and Abraham Reiss Barniv's only customers is Weinreb Management 3 Barniv supplies service personnel and maintenance and repairs to Wein reb Management Barniv employes, as the occasion arises, painters plasters roofers carpenters doorpersons elevator operators, guards porters and handypersons The doorpersons elevator operators porters guards and handypersons perform work that would normally be per formed by employees of Weinreb Management and sub ject to its contract with the Union However when Berniv supplies employees in the these job categories to Weinreb Management at the four relevant buildings the employees are paid at least $100 less per week than the wage rate specified in the union contract and no pension or welfare payments are made in their behalf Jacob Weinreb testified that if Weinreb Management saves money on wages (by employing Barniv employees) it costs less to run the four above listed buildings Thus the owners of the buildings save money on wages and in creases their profit The offices of Weinreb Management are at 276 River side Drive, a building owned by the various members of the Weinreb family named above, including the members of Weinreb Management and Barniv Weinreb Manage ment does not pay rent for its office premises Leon 2 Respondent Weinreb Management also manages the other buildings owned by the Weinreb family 3 Barnrv is the backwards spelling of Weinreb transliterated from Hebrew Its correct title is Barniv Security and Maintenance Services 430 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Weinreb is usually present there, as is Jacob Weinreb. Jacob Weinreb, an attorney, uses the Weinreb Manage- ment telephone for its business, including Barniv busi- ness, without reimbursing Weinreb Management for either rent or telephone costs.' Jacob Weinreb's secre- tary is on the Weinreb Management payroll. This secre- tary types any material required to Jacob Weinreb's work for Barniv. Jacob Weinreb testified that Barniv's offices are locat- ed at 320 Riverside Drive in the family residence of Marie Weinreb Reiss and Abraham Reiss. Abraham Reiss did not testify in this proceeding. Jacob Weinreb stated that Reiss has a desk, typewriter, and file cabinet in his home, but no copier machine. The only telephone line in the Reiss apartment is the personal telephone of Abra- ham Reiss; Barniv has no listing with the telephone com- pany. Jacob Weinreb claimed to see Abraham Reiss on business at his apartment, but he acknowledged that both he and Abraham Reiss perform work at 276 Riverside Drive in the Weinreb Management offices. Barniv does not pay rent for space at the 320 Riverside Drive home of Abraham Reiss. Abraham Reiss has a degree in economics. In addition to being a partner of Jacob Weinreb in Barniv, he is a consultant to Weinreb Management. Reiss does the books for Weinreb Management and he and Jacob Wein- reb have authority to sign checks for Weinreb.5 In fact, both men signed paychecks for Weinreb employees. On occasion Abraham Reiss does the Barniv payroll and on occasion Leon Weinreb prepares the Barniv pay- roll. Both Abraham Reiss and Leon Weinreb sign pay- checks for Barniv employees. Leon Weinreb performs this work at the Weinreb Management offices. Barniv does not pay Leon Weinreb for his payroll services per- formed for Barniv. Barniv employees Waldemar Waldon testified, without contradiction, that he was hired to work for Barniv by Leon Weinreb in the Weinreb Management office. It also appears from the uncontradicted testimony that Leon Weinreb attempted to adjust a grievance filed by Barniv employee Adam Piatkowski. Jacob Weinreb testified that Abraham Reiss directs the work for all Barniv employees. However, when asked specific questions, Jacob Weinreb stated that the supervi- sor of employees at each of the four relevant buildings was a Weinreb employee, namely, the building superin- tendent. All guards, doopersons, handypersons, elevator persons, and porters report directly to the superintendent whether they are employed by Weinreb or Barniv. In addition, the superintendent verifies the work of the Barniv carpenters, plasterers, painters, and other trades who work the four buildings. Although Jacob Weinreb stted that Reiss also checks the work, it is not clear whether he inspects all the work or some of the work or how frequently he does so. Further, there is no testimo- ny in the record that Reiss is knowledgeable in the field of building maintenance and repair. From all this, I con- Jacob Weinreb did not describe his professional activities in full. He does legal work for both Weinreb Management and Barniv. 5 The remuneration paid by Weinreb Management to Abraham Reiss and Jacob Weinreb, if any, does not appear in the record. clude that the trades report primarily to the building su- perintendent, a Weinreb employee. Barniv purchases supplies for the painters, plasterers, and other trades. However, Barniv does not purchase supplies used by the handyperson, porters, and the like, who work at the four Weinreb Management buildings; these are paid for by Weinreb Management. The record shows that several Barniv employees have transferred to the Weinreb Management payroll. These include Adam Piatkowski, Waldemar Waldon, and Ste- pien Lech. In addition to a complaint from Adam Piatkowski, de- scribed below, the Union received other complaints during 1987 from employees who worked at 46 East 91 Street (Kowalczyk), 215 East 80 Street (Waldon), and 145 East 92 Street (Luciow and Borchuck) all claiming that they were paid by Barniv at less than the wage rate specified in the collective-bargaining agreement. At the time of the instant trial, the Union had filed grievances and the matters were awaiting arbitration. The parties agree that in 1987 and early 1988, the Union's accountants requested to inspect the payroll records of Respondent Barniv for the purpose of deter- mining whether certain Barniv employees should be in- cluded in the appropriate unit. The Union renewed its request by letters of 10 April 1987 and 26 May 1987 to the Office of Contract Arbitrators, stating "The Union is seeking an audit of Barniv's books to determine if the Collective Bargaining Agreement is being complied with. 116 Barniv refused to permit. inspection of its payroll records by the Union. By certified letter dated 12 June 1987, the Union asked Respondent Weinreb Management for informatioln relat- ing to the relationship between Weinreb Management and Barniv. The Union sought specific information relat- ing to common ownership and supervision, subcontract- ing, interchange of employees, and use of supplies and administrative services. The Union did not receive the information requested. B. The Alter Ego and Single Employer Issues The criteria used to determine whether two entities are alter egos include: (1) Common ownership and control (2) Substantially identical management (3) Common business purpose (4) Nature of operations (5) Common premises and equipment (6) Common customers of similar business and market (7) Common supervision (8) Nature and extent of dealings between the two entities (9) Formation of alter ego to evade the Act See Fugazy Continental Corp., 265 NLRB 1301 (1982), enfd. 725 F.2d 1416, 1420 (D.C. Cir. 1984), which the court held that "common ownership is not an absolute 6 This office is established to administer the arbitration procedures in the collective-bargaining agreement. WEINREB MANAGEMENT prerequiste to a finding of alter ego status Crawford Door Sales Co 226 NLRB 1144 (1976) In a formal sense , the partners of Weinreb manage ment and the partners of Barniv do not share any identi ty However, to let the inquiry end with this statement would be to ignore the reality of the situation The Board s criteria speak to common ownership and control and the cases show that the Board is concerned with the underlying substance of the financial arrangements be tween alter egos, not merely with the formalities See Kenmore Contracting Co, 289 NLRB 336, 337 (1988) In the instant case, the valuable property consists of four apartment buildings all owned in various propor tions by the members of the Weinreb family , including the partners of Weinreb Management and Barniv Re spondents presented no evidence concerning any con tracts or formal financial arrangements among the part nerships and joint ventures , which own the buildings, and Weinreb Management and Barniv Certain invoices and checks were introduced into evidence that show that Barniv submits invoices to Weinreb Management for services and that Abraham Reiss writes checks from Weinreb Management to Barniv But these records were incomplete and do not reveal anything about the basis of payment It is thus safe to assume that there are no such formal financial arrangements and that both Weinreb Management and Barniv are shells mere instrumentalities of the Weinreb family, created to manage and service the 20 buildings owned by the family including the 4 build ings at issue here It is therefore of no moment that the individuals named as partners of Weinreb Management and of Barniv are not the same All these individuals are mem bers of one family and all have an ownership interest in the four buildings that constitute the equity being pre served and enhanced by the operations of Weinreb Man agement and Barniv The testimony of Jacob Weinreb clearly establishes that when Weinreb Management saves money by having Barniv supply service and maintenance personnel to the four buildings at below the union wage scale the Weinreb family owners of the four buildings including the partner of Weinreb Management and Barniv earn a greater profit Thus, I find that there is common ownership and con trol of Respondent Weinreb Management and Respond ent Barniv An analysis of the other criteria deemed material by the Board, shows that the test for alter ego status is amply satisfied The testimony shows that Weinreb Management and Barniv have substantially identical management Hiring for both partnerships is done by Leon Weinreb The books for both entities the payroll and the signing of payroll checks are done by Leon Weinreb and Abraham Reiss Both men sign checks for both partnerships Leon Weinreb adjust grievances on behalf of both partner ships Jacobs Weinreb provides legal advice to both part nerships Both entities have the same business purposes to provide service and maintenance to buildings owned by the Weinreb family The fact that Barniv also pro vides repair services while Weinreb Management does 431 not is not significant 7 Both Barniv and Weinreb Man agement occupy the same rent free premises at 276 Riv erside Drive 8 The same secretaries are used by members of either partnership The telephone and copier machine are shared As far as the unit employees are concerned, the office is at 276 Riverside Drive The service and maintenance employees of Weinreb Management and Barniv are directly supervised by the building superin tendent on the premises , an employee of Weinreb Man agement Finally, it is clear that Barniv exists as an alter ego to evade Weinreb Managements obligations under the Act The evidence shows that doormen elevator op erators handymen, and porters were paid by Barniv at wages substantially below those specified in the applica ble collective bargaining agreement to do work side by side with Weinreb employees at buildings owned by the Weinreb family Respondents have offered no reason for this arrange ment indeed, it is apparent that Barniv employees per formed the work in order to save money in the manage ment of the buildings This end could be accomplished only through Respondent Weinreb s circumvention of its duties under the collective bargaining agreement In reaching my conclusions with respect to the alter ego issue, I have relied on Mar Kay Cartage, 277 NLRB 1335 (1985), in which family ownership was found to constitute substantially identical ownership and in which the Board found that the true purpose for the formation of [the alter ego] was to evade responsibility under the Act to bargain with the Union and to honor its col lective bargaining agreement 277 NLRB at 1341-1342 I have also relied on Big Bear Supermarkets 239 NLRB 179 (1978), enfd 640 F 2d 924 (9th Or 1980), cert denied 449 U S 919 (1980), which found a sham transac tion involving family members was for the real pur pose of achieving a reduction in labor costs through the avoidance of the economic obligations imposed by its collective bargaining agreements with [the Union] 239 NLRB at 183 9 The facts discussed above also demonstrate that Wein reb Management and Barniv constitute a single employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act There is central control of labor relations over the employees of both partnerships (by Leon Weinreb and the building su perintendents) there is an interrelation of operations of the two entities there if common ownership and finan cial control and there is common management (by Leon Weinreb and Abraham Reiss) Accordingly I find that the service employees of Barniv empoloyed at the four buildings at issue are employees of Weinreb Management and part of the bargaining unit covered by the collective bargaining agreement 7 Barniv did not supply complete payroll and personnel records in re sponse to the General Counsels subpoena and it is thus not possible to determine what proportion of Barniv s business is repair work as com pared to service and maintenance 8 Based in the testimony I find that very little Barniv work is per formed in Abraham Reiss home at 320 Riverside Drive 'The cases cited in Respondents brief on the alter ego question are not apposite they all present factual circumstances far different from the facts in the instant case 432 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Respondents urge that the employees of Barniv cannot constitute a single unit with those of Weinreb Manage- ment because Barniv employs plasterers, carpenters, roofers, and the like in addition to employees performing functions covered by the collective-bargaining agree- ment. This argument is without merit. Manifestly, the porters, handypersons elevator operators, doormen, guards, and the like on the Barniv payroll can be includ- ed in the appropriate unit and the other trades ex- cluded.'0 Pursuant to the contract, Barniv was obligated to pro- vide its payroll and social security records to the Union on request so that the Union could determine whether the contract was being complied with. It is also apparent by the same reasoning that Weinreb Management was obligated to inform the Union, pursuant to its request of the details of its relationship with Barniv. This informa- tion was necessary and relevant to the Union's duty as the collective-bargaining representative. Therefore, by refusing to permit the Union to inspect Barniv payroll records and by refusing to provide the Union with information relating to the relationship be- tween Weinreb Management and Barniv , Respondents violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. C. Allegations Concerning Piatkowski Adam Piatkowski began work as an elevator operator at 145 East 92nd Street on 5 May 1985. Before com- mencing work, he was interviewed by Jacob Weinreb at the Weinreb Management office. After about 2 weeks on the job, Piatkowski was interviewed by Leon Weinreb, at the Weinreb Management office. The latter asked for Piatkowski's name, address, telephone number, and social security number and informed him that he had the job. Piatkowski received a weekly paycheck from Barniv Maintenance and Security in the amount of $175 for 40 hours of work. It appears that no itemized deductions were made in his behalf. On June 14, 1985, Piatkowski filed a grievance with the Union, claiming that instead of receiving the rate of $357.42 weekly as specified in the collective-bargaining agreement he was being paid only $175. After Piat- kowski filed the grievance, Leon Weinreb came to the building where he worked. Leon Weinreb told Piat- kowski that the Union had demanded that Piatkowski re- ceive a higher wage and that he would be placed on the computerized payroll and the amount of backpay due him would be calculated. In September, Piatkowski began receiving paychecks from Weinreb Management instead of Barniv. Several weeks before the arbitration of Piatkowski's grievance in November 1986, Leon Weinreb summoned Piatkowski to the Weinreb Management office. Both Leon and Jacob Weinreb were present in the office when Piatkowski arrive. Leon Weinreb showed Piat- kowski a form of agreement and offered him $924. The 10I note that the records submitted by Barniv and Weinreb Manage- ment were incomplete . Thus, it is not clear how many trades employees Barniv employs . Further, it is not clear whether, and to what extent, the plasterers, carpenters, and others work at the four buildings at issue and to what extent they may work at other buildings owned by the Weinreb family. document contained a release of Piatkowski's claim against Weinreb. Piatkowski did not sign the document because he believed he was owed in excess of $924. Jacob Weinreb then called the Union to find out the amount owing , but he did not obtain the information. Piatkowski offered to obtain the correct figure from the Union on the next day. Then, Leon Weinreb told him, "it's always better to be on the side of the company, to be . . . in a good relation to the company" in case Piat- kowski needed a long vacation to visit Poland or if he wanted to change jobs within the building. The arbitrator rendered an award of $4156.14 in favor of Piatkowski for 17 weeks work at below the contract wage. 11 The General Counsel alleges that Leon Weinreb's statements amounted to an attempt to bypass the Union. I agree . The Union had filed a grievance in Piatkowski's behalf. The issue of backpay was pending arbitration. Leon Weinreb's attempt to settle with the employee for a sum less than that demanded by the Union without in- cluding the Union in the discussion was a violation of Respondent's obligations under Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Further, Leon Weinreb's attempt to encourage Piatkowski to settle because he needed to be "in a good relation to the company" in case he needed a long vaca- tion or a change of jobs was coercive. Piatkowski could reasonably infer from Leon Weinreb's statements that he would receive special favors from his Employer if he set- tled for an amount of backpay less than that requested by the Union pursuant to the contract and without the par- ticipation of the Union at the arbitration Respondent thus violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Weinreb Management and its alter ego Barniv Secu- rity Maintenance Services, constitute a single employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. All services employees of Weinreb Management and Barniv Security and Maintenance Services at 145 East 92d Street, 46 East 91st Street, 215 East 80th Street, and 100 East End Avenue are under the jurisidiction of the Union pursuant to the collective-bargaining agreement. 3. The Union is now, and at all times material has been, the exclusive bargaining representative of the Weinreb Management and Barniv Security and Mainte- nance Services service employees at the above lited loca- tions for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 4. Respondent Weinreb Management and its alter ego Barniv Security and Maintenance Services violated Sec- tion 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by promising their em- ployees better working conditions to refrain from seeking the Union's representation, bypasing the Union, and deal- ing directly with their employees, refusing to permit the Union to inspect Barniv payroll records and refusing to 11 The arbitrator found that Piatkowski had been underpaid from 5 May until 9 September 1985. The arbitrator's opinion states that Piat- kowski had been paid only $112 per week. This discrepancy was not ex- plained in the instant proceeding. WEINREB MANAGEMENT provide the Union with information relating to the rela tionship between Weinreb Management and Barniv THE REMEDY Having found that Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act I shall recommend that they be required to cease and desist therefrom and that they take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act Having found that Respondents unlawful conduct was for the purpose of avoiding and evading their collective bargaining obligations, conduct which is antithetical to the entire collective bargaining process and to a primary policy of the Act, I find that Respondents should be or dered to cease and desist from infringing in any other manner on the rights guaranteed to their employees by Section 7 of the Act 12 On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record I issue the following recommend ed13 ORDER The Respondents, Weinreb Management and Barniv Security and Maintenance Services New York, New York their officers, agents successors and assigns, shall (a) Promising their employees better working condi tions if they refrain from seeking the Union s representa tion dealing directly with their employees refusing to 12 See Big Bear Supermarkets supra 239 NLRB at 185 13 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board s Rules and Regulations the findings conclusions and recommended Order shall as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur poses 433 permit the Union to inspect Barniv payroll records and refusing to provide the Union with information relating to the relationship between Respondents (b) Infringing in any other manner on the rights guar anteed to their employees by Section 7 of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Permit the Union to conduct an audit of Barniv Se curity and Maintenance Services' payroll records and social security reports to see if the collective bargaining agreement is being complied with (b) Provide the information requested in the Union s letter of June 12, 1987 (c) Post at its facility copies of the attached notice marked Appendix 14 Copies of the notice, in English and Polish on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 2, after being signed by the Respondents au thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond ents immediately upon receipt and maintained by them for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted 15 Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re spondents to ensure that the notices are not altered de faced or covered by any other material (d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re spondent has taken to comply 14 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 is A Polish translation is necessary because the record shows that many of Respondents employees are recent Polish immigrants and do not understand English