Bundy Corp.

BUNDY CORP 671 Bundy Corporation and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple ment Workers of America (UAW) Cases 7- CA-27005, 7-CA-27480(l), and 7-CA- 27480(3) January 25, 1989 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND HIGGINS On July 20, 1988, Administrative Law Judge Walter H Maloney issued the attached decision The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief The National Labor Relations Board has delegat ed its authority in this proceeding to a three member panel The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, i and conclusions, as modified below, 2 and to adopt the recommended Order as modified 1 We agree with the judge's finding that the Re spondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by failing to notify and bargain with the Union, be tween the election and certification, concerning its changes in employee job duties and working condi- tions and its economically motivated layoffs of Lowell Bates, Sheila Hannibal, and Rosemary Vroman The Respondent has filed exceptions to the judge's finding of these 8(a)(5) violations, in- cluding its failure to bargain over the layoffs, and to the make whole remedy ordered We find the Respondent's exceptions to be without merit The judge's unfair labor practice finding and recom- mended remedy with respect to the layoffs are in accordance with Board precedent See Adair Standish Corp, 290 NLRB 317, 319 (1988), Lapeer Foundry & Machine, 289 NLRB 952 (1988), Felbro Inc, 274 NLRB 1268 (1985), enfd in relevant part 795 F 2d 705 (9th Cir 1986) 2 We affirm, for the following reasons, the judge's finding that the Respondent also violated Section 8(a)(5) by its unreasonable delay in furnish- ' The record is insufficient to support the judge s finding in sec I B of his decision that the Respondent does not offer vacation benefits In addition we note that the judge inadvertently referred to Foreman Ed monds written disciplinary warning to employee Flowers on October 2 1987 as a step two instead of a step one warning These inaccuracies do not affect our decision to affirm the judge s remaining findings 2 The judge included a visitatorial clause in his remedy authorizing the Board for compliance purposes to obtain discovery from the Respond ent under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure subject to the supervision of the United States court of appeals enforcing this Order Under the cir cumstances of this case we find merit in the Respondent s exception and deem it unnecessary to include such a clause Cherokee Marine Terminal 287 NLRB 1080 ( 1988) Accordingly we will modify the remedy by de leting the visitatorial clause ing information demanded by the Union for bar- gaining Beginning about 10 days after the Union's certifi- cation on September 4, 1987, International Union Representative Spillman wrote, and also visited, Plant Manager Stebelton to request bargaining On September 29, Personnel Director Clinton wrote to Spillman and requested the Union to forward its initial contract proposal to the Respondent in ad- vance of the first negotiating meeting Spillman re- plied to Clinton on October 2, requesting informa tion pertaining to employee classifications, pay rates, seniority, retirement, and fringe benefits, which he stated was needed prior to the first meet ing Thereafter, on October 20, Union Regional Di rector Marshall apprised Clinton by letter that DeMott had been designated as the chief union ne- gotiator, and that DeMott would be assisted by Spillman The Respondent made no response to Spillman's request for information by October 30 On that date DeMott wrote to Clinton, requesting that bargaining begin on November 16, and de manding by November 16 the information previ- ously demanded by Spillman as well as copies of any employee benefit programs during the prior 2 years On November 6, Clinton wrote to decline the November 16 meeting date because of prior com- mitments Clinton's letter repeated the request for a copy of the Union's bargaining demands in ad- vance of bargaining, it also included an employee handbook and a statement that he was still in the process of collecting insurance costs Other than the handbook, no information was furnished to the Union At the first negotiating meeting on December 1, the Union made another demand on Clinton for the same material, and Clinton replied that he still did not have it However, at the parties' second bargaining ses lion on December 14, Clinton handed DeMott a package containing, inter alia, pay rates, a seniority list, insurance costs, and a copy of the pension plan DeMott testified at the hearing that he initial ly believed Clinton's package was complete, but that he later realized that he was still lacking infor- mation concerning the employees' sickness and ac- cident, and death and disability insurance plans DeMott testified that he obtained the missing infor mation by telephoning Clinton about 2 days later 3 The judge concluded that the Respondent delayed furnishing the requested information for an unrea 3 DeMott s testimony was given in clarification of the earlier oral stip ulation by the parties at the heanng that the Union has received all of the information that was requested as of December 12th or 14th 292 NLRB No 69 672 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sonable amount of time and thereby violated Sec- tion 8(a)(5) of the Act. The Respondent argues that a lapse of 6 weeks, in complying with DeMott's October 30 demand,4 is not unreasonable and does not warrant an 8(a)(5) finding. We do not agree. It is clear from the foregoing that the Respond- ent, after conditioning its willingness to meet with the Union on its ability to review the Union's con- tract proposals in advance of bargaining, then pro- ceeded, for 2-1/2 months, to ignore or delay sup- plying the Union with the necessary information for the preparation of its contract proposals. In de- fense of the delay, the Respondent cites its corpo- rate officials' preoccupation with an impending ac- quisition, the Union's own failure to repeat its re- quests for information during the numerous tele- phone conversations with the Respondent during that period, and its implicit belief that it was not obliged to comply with Spillman's initial demand for information made on October 2 because he was only DeMott's assistant. We find the Respondent's reasons for its delay to be specious, particularly in light of the nature of the requested material, which could readily have been obtained from the Re- spondent's plant or home office files. In any event, we conclude from the foregoing that the Respond- ent's delay in furnishing the Union with the re- quested information impeded the Union's prepara- tions for the upcoming negotiations with the Re- spondent, including its efforts to comply with the latter's request to submit a contract proposal in ad- vance, and in general interfered with the Union's ability to represent the unit employees, in an in- formed and effective manner from the outset of bargaining. In short, the delay was, like other un- lawful conduct of the Respondent, in derogation of the Union's status as the employees' exclusive col- lective-bargaining representative. Accordingly, we adopt the judge's 8(a)(5) refusal to furnish informa- tion finding. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Re- spondent, Bundy Corporation, Hillsdale, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order as modified. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(f). "(f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply." 4 The Respondent's reliance on this date fails to account for the fact that the Union's information request was originally made on October 2. Richard P. Connolly, Esq., of Detroit, Michigan, for the General Counsel. John A. Entenman, Esq., of Detroit, Michigan, for the Respondent. Don Spillman and David DeMott, International Repre- sentatives , of Flint, Michigan, for the Charging Party. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1. FINDINGS OF FACT WALTER H. MALONEY, Administrative Law Judge. This case came on for hearing before me at Hillsdale, Michigan, on a consolidated unfair labor practice com- plaint' issued by the Regional Director for Region 7 of the National Labor Relations Board, which alleges Re- spondent Bundy Corporation2 violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. More particularly, the consolidated complaint alleges that the Respondent coercively interro- gated one of its employees concerning her union activi- ties; unilaterally changed the job content of bargaining unit employees without first notifying the Union and bar- gaining over the changes; attempted to establish a pro- gram apart from collective bargaining to solicit griev- ances and resolve issues concerning wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment; unreasonably de- layed furnishing the Union with information relevant to collective bargaining that the Union requested; and uni- laterally engaged in the layoffs of Lowell Bates, Sheila Hannibal, and Rosemary Vroman without bargaining with the Union concerning the layoffs. Most, but not all, of these events occurred between March 5, 1987, when the Union won a representation election, and September 4, 1987, when the Board certified the Union for the Hillsdale production and maintenance unit. The Re- spondent denies engaging in any coercive interrogations, states that any unilateral changes in working conditions were de minimis, that its program aimed at improving ' The principal docket entries in this case are as follows: Charge filed against the Respondent by International Union , United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) (the Union) in Case 7-CA-27005 on June 1 , 1987; amended charge filed by the Union against the Respondent in Case 7-CA-27005 on June 18 , 1987; complaint issued by the Regional Director against the Respondent in Case 7-CA-27005 on July 31, 1987; Respondent's answer filed on August 6, 1987; charge filed against Respondent by the Union in Cases 7-CA-27480(l) and 7-CA-27480(3) on November 13, 1987; con- solidated complaint issued in both cases against the Respondent on De- cember 30, 1987; Respondent's answer to consolidated complaint filed on January 7, 1988; hearing held in Hillsdale, Michigan, on April 27, 28, and 29; Briefs filed with me by the General Counsel and the Respondent on June 27, 1988. 2 Respondent admits, and I find , that it is a corporation organized pur- suant to the laws of the State of Michigan, which maintains a place of business in Hillsdale, Michigan, where it is engaged in the manufacture and nonretail sale and distribution of automobile parts. During calendar year 1986, Respondent , in the course and conduct of this business, manu- factured, sold, and distributed from its Hillsdale, Michigan place of busi- ness products valued in excess of $100,000, of which products valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped directly from this plant to points and places located outside the State of Michigan. Accordingly, the Respond- ent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec. 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec. 2(5) of the Act. BUNDY CORP the quality of worklife at the plant was never implement ed, and that the layoffs were permissible because they were undertaken for nondiscriminatory reasons and in accordance with the Company s past practices On these contentions the issues here were framed A The Unfair Labor Practices Alleged Respondent is a supplier of the big three automobile companies and for that purpose operates several plants in the United States and Canada that are engaged in the manufacturing of various kinds of automotive parts Most of those plants including one at Coldwater, Michigan, are unionized The plant involved in this proceeding, lo cated at Hillsdale, Michigan is unorganized and has about 35 persons in its production and maintenance unit This figure has increased dramatically in recent months The Hillsdale plant has been in existence since 1979 and is principally engaged in the manufacture of an item called a push rod The normal workday at Bundy Hillsdale for the first shift is 6 a in to 3 30 p in, Monday thru Thursday and 6 until 10 am on Friday The afternoon shift is similarly structured so that the regular Friday shift lasts only 4 hours On Thursday, March 5, 1987, a representation election was conducted among the production and main tenance employees between 3 15 and 3 45 p in a time span that bridged the end of the first shift and the begin ning of the second Votes were counted immediately thereafter showing that the Union had won by a margin of two votes Respondent filed timely objections and a hearing on those objections was conducted by the Re gional Director on April 10 The Regional Director overruled the objections so the Respondent appealed his decision to the Board On September 4, 6 months follow ing the election, the Board also overruled the objections and certified the Union The first bargaining session did not take place until December 1 some 9 months follow ing the election Most of the events that were litigated in this case took place during that interim On Friday, February 27 the Respondent posted a notice at the Hillsdale plant soliciting a volunteer for layoff As more fully discussed infra the Respondent conventionally sought volunteers in layoff situations and engaged in involuntary layoffs only when it was not able to find enough employees who wanted to take time off The Respondent does not offer vacation benefits so it has often been able to obtain requests from employees who are willing to take voluntary layoffs and draw unemploy ment compensation The February 27 notice read Due to continuing low levels of demand we are accepting one volunteer for lay off effective 3-6-87 Anyone interested please sign by 3-4-87 Two employees Linda Brown and Brian Gilpin signed the list Later Brown changed her mind and struck her name from the list leaving only Gilpin On March 5, Lowell Bates a second shift production employee served as union observer at the election The following day Bates, who had the lowest seniority of any production employee but not the lowest plantwide seniority was called into the office and given an indefi nite layoff Art Stebelton, the plant manager told him that there was a low demand and that the plant was 673 overstaffed by one employee Bates testified that he was in a state of shock because maintenance employee Doug Marquard had less seniority than he did Stebelton told Bates, as the latter was cleaning out his locker, that the Company would try to get him back to work as soon as it could 3 On May 26, Bates found another job so he re signed from the Company on June 30 At no time was he ever offered a recall On May 15 Stebelton called machine operators Rose mary Vroman and Sheila Hannibal into his office and told them that they were being laid off This news came as a surprise to both of them because the Company had not posted a request for layoff volunteers Stebelton at tributed the layoff to a decline in production and said that they would be laid off for an indefinite period of time but not less than 90 days Both employees asked Stebelton if he had solicited volunteers for these layoffs and he said no Both were the machine operators with the least seniority, although maintenance man Marquard had less seniority than either of them Hannibal ultimate ly quit on August 27 before being offered recall Vroman was recalled on November 18 and was working at the time of the hearing in this case On May 20 UAW International Representative Don Spillman wrote Stebelton the following letter As you are aware, we won an election on March 5, 1987 Your company filed objections a hearing was held on April 10, 1987, in Hillsdale, and again you know that the National Labor Relations Board upheld our election 4 Since we are now a Union plant we would like to request a meeting to discuss a lay off and re call provision at your location Neither Stebelton nor anyone else replied to this letter In April and May 1987 the Respondent began to im plement a so called Just In Time (JIT) method of inven tory control Its major customers had developed a pro gram of placing the Hillsdale (and possibly other) plants on a short lease In order to reduce their own invento rtes (and the amount of money tied up in such invento rtes) the auto companies began to require the Company to supply needed parts in comparatively small amounts but on extremely short notice To reduce its own inven tory of raw materials Bundy Hillsdale began to impose the same kind of short notice delivery requirements on its own suppliers Coincidentally with revisions in its inventory control program, the Respondent inaugurated a program of job enlargement among its production and maintenance em 3 Notwithstanding this sequence of events the General Counsel elected to prosecute the discharge of Bates as a unilateral discharge in violation of Sec 8(a)(5) of the Act rather than a discriminatory discharge in viola Lion of Sec 8(a)(3) of the Act Accordingly the facts and circumstances surrounding this event will have to be analyzed in terms of the Respond ent s duty to bargain rather than in terms of its duty to refrain from dis criminating against employees on the basis of their union activities 4 The reference here was to the action of the Regional Director in De troit The Board did not act on the objections until September 4 when it upheld the Regional Director overruled the objections and certified the Union 674 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployees. s Employee meetings for both shifts were held at two local restaurants in which JIT was explained. Em- ployees were told that they would be expected to take on more responsibility for the maintenance and operation of their machines and that their workload would be heavier than before. Most of the changes were imple- mented beginning about May 15, but there were no changes in wages to accompany the changes in job duties. In most instances the changes involved a require- ment on the part of machine operators that they learn to perform new functions. One such change involved the use of forklifts by machine operators. Previously, it was the practice of either the foremen or salaried nonunit technicians to use forklifts to move stock to production machines and to cart away .finished products. Some unit employees used forklifts occasionally, but these were em- ployees assigned to quality control or to shipping and re- ceiving. All that most machine operators did was run machines. Following the implementation of the new program, all machine operators were and are expected to know how to operate a forklift and to service their own machine by obtaining stock and taking away finished products. The State of Michigan requires the examination and licensing of forklift operators. On July 17, an employee of the State Department of Labor came to the plant and gave forklift examinations to employees who previously did not have such licenses. Various employees testified credi- bly as to the impact of their new use of forklifts. Em- ployee Rosemary Vroman testified that now she uses a forklift at least 3 or 4 times a day and sometimes as often as 10 or 12 times a day. Employee Sherree Flowers cred- ibly testified that grinders, medarts, and choppers now use the forklift machine more than 10 minutes a day and that she drives a forklift as much as 2 hours a day. Other jobs, such as checking gauges, replacing blades, and cleaning the copper tips on welding machines, which were formerly performed by salaried technicians, were assigned to operators, while technicians and general fore- men started to do welding work over substantial periods of time formerly done by bargaining unit employees as- signed to use the automatic welding machine . Rosemary Vroman estimated that she now spends 10 minutes each day cleaning copper tips on welding machines. She fur- ther testified credibly that she spends between 5 minutes and 1 hour a day in all performing tasks that she did not perform before May 1987. Some of the jobs absorbed by bargaining unit personnel were performed by working foremen or by technicians whom the Company was able to discharge. Also inaugurated at this time was a Quality of Work Life (QWL) program which the Respondent had been using at some of its other plants. In the fall of 1986, the 6 The word "coincidentally" is used because the Respondent failed to demonstrate in this record any necessary causal connection between JIT, a revised program of inventory control to meet short orders from its cus- tomers, and the program of job enlargement it instituted resulting in unit employees doing more work for the same pay. Moreover, during the classes that were conducted by the Respondent for its employees, the Company never explained what connection , if any, the inventory control program might have with the additional duties they were expected to perform. Respondent announced that a QWL program would be started at the Hillsdale plant, but nothing was done about it until May 11, when a notice was posted informing em- ployees concerning the election of a steering committee. The notice read in part: After last Friday's session, the next step is to select a "Steering Committee." The typical steering committee for a plant this size would be three people including the plant manager. We need to select those people. The steering committee will "steer" the employee involvement teams. They will establish the ground rules for the teams, they will select the facilitator, they will review and approve or disapprove team projects prior to the teams starting work on them and will review the team's proposals prior to imple- mentation. The steering committee would meet monthly from 3:00 p.m, until all business was completed and would receive straight time pay for the time in- volved. The meeting time would not pay overtime, and would meet monthly. Each shift should think about who they want on that steering committee. At our monthly meeting, Wednesday, May 13, 1987, which will be a separate shift meeting, I will ask for nominations and those nominations will be voted on. Majority nominees win the elections. On May 13, Plant Manager Stebelton, Purchasing Agent Robert Pfeiffer, and bargaining unit employee Robert Hackworth were elected to the steering committee. Em- ployees were told by Stebelton at one of the regular monthly employee meetings that they should pass along to management their ideas about improvements in the plant through the steering committee. The steering committee held a series of meetings throughout the summer of 1987. One of its tasks was to select a facilitator, who was expected to serve as the liai- son linking the steering committee and a number of em- ployee groups simply referred to as teams. On July 8, they selected Sherree Flowers. During the following week, Flowers and Stebelton attended a week-long semi- nar in St. Clair, Michigan, on the subject of QWL, which was conducted by the Michigan Department of Labor. The purpose of the seminar was to train facilita- tors and steering committee members. During the open- ing session of this seminar, when participants were called on to introduce themselves and to state why they were attending, Stebelton told his fellow participants that Bundy-Hillsdale was interested in implementing a QWL program because its employees had voted in a union in March. On their return to Hillsdale, Stebelton and Flow- ers prepared and distributed to the bargaining unit a brief report on the seminar. Stebelton's remarks included the following statement: The resultant decision from the QWL process is usually the best because the input is open and the options have been investigated before implementa- tion. BUNDY CORP The seminar teaches that exact principle but ex pands the decision making process to include people from throughout the plant It works because the best decisions come about as the result of a clear, complete understanding of the problem and a wide group commitment to make the decision work This process is what this plant needs We have been di vided too long, lets pull together as a team and make this plant succeed' Among the types of projects suggested by the steering committee for possible involvement by employee teams were the condition of the parking lot whether soft drink vending machines should feature Pepsi Cola rather than Coca Cola, problems with plant air conditioning, plant policy concerning makeup time eliminating the blow out unit, new methods for length adjustment of cutoffs and pigeon holes for cutoff jobs, minimizing waste due to scrapped parts, and housekeeping suggestions Among the items which were off limits for employee team in volvement in the QWL program were rates of pay, bene fits programs production rates, workloads, and attitude problems These were deemed to be problems best dis cussed directly with the production foreman or the plant manager On August 25 an employee team of five members was selected for the purpose of a pilot training session for prospective team members On September 1 and 3 they were given a total of 8 hours of training concerning what would be expected of employees selected for QWL teams The pilot training sessions were critiqued by a member of the steering committee In a prepared speech to this group Stebelton remarked on the Company s commitment to the QWL program as evidenced by the amount of money that it had spent on QWL training He told the team that Darrell Gobel Respondents group plant manager had spoken to Stebelton on many occa sions about the importance of QWL He repeated Gobel s statement that this process not only will help insure a future for the Company, but it is the way to treat people In his prepared remarks Stebelton called the process imperative for this plant We have tried in the past to adopt the principles in an informal manner It doesn t appear to have worked So let s be flexible and do the formal procedure We have a steering committee That committee has formed a philoso phy and some guidelines A facilitator has been se lected and trained We are ready to form a team train that team as best as we can and put the proc ess into action That s why you are here Both Sherree and I know that some of you are pro union and some are anti union but don t let those opinions influence your decision making in this training ses sion or later in your team projects You will be making decisions that effect everyone in the plant Remember, you are dealing with people's working conditions safety and their livelihood As an example of the type of problem the QWL teams should be addressing and how it should go about solving the problem, this training session used the cleanliness of 675 the floors as a model for discussion and team action One of the items in the critique listed as bad was the com ment that facilitators should not wear inflammatory pins The reference was to the fact that during her presentation Flowers wore both QWL and UAW pins on her clothing In December, the first regular employee QWL team was selected and given a training session The team was composed of five employees who were told about a number of questions they could address, such as the se lection of a soft drink vending machine or the paving of the employee parking lot However, their activity never went any further By this time the Respondent had begun to negotiate with the Union and during a January session the Union objected to the QWL program, so it was discontinued Following the Board certification, Spillman wrote an other letter to Stebelton, dated September 14 requesting a meeting to discuss hours, wages and other terms and conditions of employment for the purpose of reaching an agreement Stebelton made no response so Spillman went to the plant to speak to him Stebelton told Spill man that the company attorney would send a reply On September 29, Daniel J Clinton the Respondent s director of personnel and industrial relations, wrote to Spillman, as follows Please be advised that we are ready to negotiate with you While we continue to doubt that a major ity of our employees support representation by the UAW we will fully comply with the recent order of the National Labor Relations Board The principal negotiators on behalf of the Com pany will be myself and John Entenman Please advise us as to who will represent the Union While we will release an appropriate number of unit em ployees to attend negotiations we will not compen sate them for time missed We suggest that you prepare your first offer and send it to me at your earliest convenience We would like to review it prior to our first meeting However as you may know the Bundy Corpora tion is being purchased by TI of London England It may take a few weeks before we know the direc tion they may wish to take in this matter On October 2 Spillman wrote to Clinton informing him that David DeMottand would represent the UAW and that the plant committee would be composed of Mike Clark, Sherree Flowers Craig Winner and April Waterman He asked to start bargaining on October 8 and to continue until a contract was reached He also re quested the following information saying that the Union needed it prior to the first meeting A seniority list Each classification in the Plant Pay rates by employees Copy of the 5500 forms covering pension and in surance plans and supporting schedules Cost of life insurance 676 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Cost of hospital and medical insurance Cost of dental insurance A copy of the retirement plan along with a copy of the benefits package Most recent evaluation and cost of attached The Union received no immediate reply to this letter On October 20, 1987 Stan Marshall, the UAW region al director for the area that includes Hillsdale, wrote Clinton a letter indicating that David M DeMott would be the UAW s lead negotiator assisted by Spillman DeMott was acquainted with Clinton and had negotiated contracts with Clinton covering the Bundy plant in nearby Coldwater Michigan Following Marshall s letter DeMott wrote Clinton a letter dated October 30 reiterating the demand for in formation Spillman had made in his letter of October 2 He asked for copies of any benefit programs offered to the Hillsdale Bundy employees in the previous 2 years He also asked that the material be provided no later than November 10 and told Clinton that he had set aside the entire week of November 16 for bargaining He request ed that bargaining start on November 16 On November 6, Clinton sent DeMott a copy of a 25 page employee handbook and stated that he was in the process of collecting cost information He did not send any booklet at that time that outlined insurance costs Clinton declined to meet on dates suggested by DeMott claiming that his schedule was full but he indicated that he would call DeMott the following week to arrange a date He also requested a copy of the Union s bargaining demands so they could be reviewed previous to the first negotiating session That meeting was finally held on De cember I At the December 1 meeting Clinton was asked orally for the material that had previously been requested He replied that he did not have it At the next negotiating session on December 14, Clinton handed DeMott a pack age that contained cost data on the insurance program, the pay rates at the Hillsdale plant a seniority list a copy of the pension plan and evaluation of the plan, and a copy of the Labor Department Form 5500, which had been filed in December Clinton made no explanation as to why it took him more than 2 months to supply this information After looking over the package DeMott found that the Respondent still had not answered all the Union s questions A few days later, he called Clinton and asked him for cost data pertaining to two of the Re spondent s insurance programs Clinton gave DeMott this information over the telephone On October 2, Edmonds summoned Flowers into his office for a disciplinary warning The office in question is an enclosed room, having glass panels on three sides, that is located on the production floor From time to time employees come in and out of the office on various errands On the occasion in question the door was shut and no one else entered or left for over an hour while Edmonds spoke with Flowers Edmonds told her that she was being written up for having too many defects and rejects on the parts that she was producing Her reply was that she was being set up by other employees in the plant Edmonds said that this was not possible be cause there was no way that anyone else could put de fective parts in the middle of her stack where they were found He asked her to be more careful in the future and she said that she would The written warning that was placed in her personnel folder constituted step two in the Respondents progressive discipline system I credit Flowers to the effect that the conversation then turned to the question of her union activities At that point it became quite heated 6 Edmonds accused Flowers of lying to him when she was interviewed for a job Flowers had come from a unionized plant and had told Edmonds during her hiring in interview that she did not care whether she worked in a union plant so long as she was treated properly Edmonds reminded her on this occasion that she had spoken these words to him in the same office where they were then talking Flowers said that she meant what she had said at the time and that she would not have changed her mind if she had been treat ed right Edmonds asked her why she was spending so much time with the bargaining committee when she could be home looking after her husband and her horse Her reply was that she was doing it because she cared Edmonds retorted that she must care because she was spending so much time at it When the discussion con cluded, Edmonds presented the writeup to her for her signature , but she refused to sign it As of the time of the hearing in this case, the parties had still not concluded a contract The Union was in the process of taking strike votes while the Respondent had hired 25 additional employees and was working three shifts for the purpose of building up a strike bank of available parts B Analysis and Conclusions 1 Animus and independent 8(a)(1) violations of the Act I credit the testimony of former technician Brian Gilpin that on April 24 1987 when he was fired he was told by Stebelton and Edmonds that he was being fired because of his union activities Although neither this event nor their statement was alleged as a violation of the Act it demonstrated animus on the part of the Re spondent to unionization and the whole idea of collective bargaining at the Hillsdale plant On October 2 the Respondents general foreman called a leading union activist into the plant office and administered written discipline to her for production shortcomings On this occasion Edmonds accused her of lying to him about her union sympathies and asked her why she was spending so much time on union activities This conversation was characterized in the consolidated complaint as interrogation, although the questions asked were not designed so much to elicit information as to berate Flowers for exercising her Section 7 rights How ever Edmonds conduct might be described it was coer cive both because of the setting in which it took place 6 Edmonds admits participation in a conversation with Flowers which contained many of the statements recounted by her However he insists that the conversation took place in the foreman s office several weeks later I discredit this assertion BUNDY CORP and because of the nature of the remarks that he made to an employee Accordingly those remarks constitute a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act The Respondent was able to stave off collective bar gaining for nearly 9 months from the time the Union first demonstrated its entitlement to recognition First it filed baseless objections, then it told the Union that even though it would negotiate because it had to it still doubted the Union s majority status and said quite can didly that perhaps the new owner might take another look at the decision to comply with the certification During this same period of time, the Respondent en gaged in other activities discussed below , which had the necessary effect of undercutting the Union s status as bargaining agent Now it is building up a strike bank in order to challenge on the picket line a union it could not prevent from coming into the plant in the course of a representation proceeding These actions constitute hos tility both toward the Union and to collective bargain ing at least at this plant The fact that the Respondent may have concluded contracts with the same union at other plants in no way mitigates the continuing hostility it has displayed from the outset at Hillsdale 2 The layoffs of Bates Vroman, and Hannibal The layoffs of Bates, Vroman, and Hannibal all took place following the time when the Union had demon strated its majority status as bargaining representative but before a certification of this fact had been made by the Board The Respondent admits that it did not bargain with the Union over any aspect of these layoffs but as serts that it did not have to do so The law is well settled that when an employer acts as this one did in derogation of a union s bargaining position it does so at its peril It is not entitled to continue to act in a unilateral fashion as if there were no bargaining agent when in fact there is To permit an employer to do so would simply put a pre mium on chewing up bargaining rights by chewing up time The Board summed up the law on this point in O Connor Chevrolet Buick GMC Co 209 NLRB 701 703 (1974) The Board has long held that absent compelling economic considerations for doing so an employer acts at its peril in making changes in terms and con ditions of employment during the period that objec tions to an election are pending and the final deter mination has not been made And where the final determination on the objections results in the certifi cation of a representative, the Board has held the employer to have violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) for having made such unilateral changes Such changes have the effect of bypassing, undercutting and undermining the union s status as the statutory representative of the employees in the event a certi fication is issued To hold otherwise would allow an employer to box the union in on future bargaining positions by implementing changes of policy and practice during the period when objections or de terminative challenges to the election are pending 677 This rule has been reiterated in a variety of situations in volving unilateral actions that have been taken during the pendency of objections Amsterdam Printing & Litho Corp 223 NLRB 370 (1976) It applies to layoffs that have taken place without notice to the affected union It requires bargaining concerning the decision to lay off an individual or individuals and the implementation of that decision Clements Wire & Mfg Co 257 NLRB 1058 (1981) John Cuneo Inc 257 NLRB 551 (1981) Flex Products, 278 NLRB 417 (1986) The rule requires ade quate notice to the Union in advance of a proposed layoff so that the Union can formulate and present bar gaining demands concerning the matter Sundstrand Heat Transfer, 221 NLRB 544 (1975) Even though the layoffs may be economically motivated as the Respondent con tends in this case, the Respondent must still notify the Union of contemplated action and bargain over the ques tion Gulf States Mfrs, 261 NLRB 852 (1982) Indeed, most positions taken in the course of collective bargain ing by either side are economically motivated Economic motivation can hardly be an excuse for an employer to act unilaterally in a matter as crucial as removing certain employees on its payroll, when this consideration does not excuse unilateral action related to any other manda tory subject of bargaining By leaning hard on the con tention that these discharges were legal because they were not discriminatorily motivated the Respondent is trying to press the facts of this case into a mold of an 8(a)(3) discharge case, and they just do not fit Its duty to bargain is the same regardless of its motivation By 4 p in on March 5 1987 the UAW had become the statutory collective bargaining representative of the employees in the Bundy Hillsdale bargaining unit From that moment forward it was entitled to notice and an opportunity to bargain collectively over any layoffs or any other changes in conditions of employment that might be effectuated thereafter This entitlement ex tended to the layoff of Bates which took place the fol lowing afternoon and to the layoffs of Vroman and Hannibal which did not take place until 2 months later Even if the Respondent had followed its past practice in making these layoffs-a fact that is seriously in issue- the UAW was still entitled to negotiate whether any layoff at all was necessary whether the employers past standards were in fact being followed whether previous standards were appropriate standards whether possible alternatives of layoff were possible and a host of other contentions might have been placed on the table had the Union been given the opportunity to exercise the func tion with which the law and the members of the bargain mg unit had endowed it The Respondent asserts that it was excused from bar gaining because the layoffs were prompted not only by economic considerations but by compelling economic considerations We have yet to be told what was so com pelting about the situations it faced on March 6 and May 15 that could not have accommodated collective bargain ing There is nothing in the record that would support such a contention At the time these actions occurred the Respondent was stonewalling the Union in hopes that it would go away It refused even to respond to 678 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Spillman's letter of May 20 relative to layoff and recall procedures. The assertion at this time of "compelling" economic necessity is as baseless as were the objections that were filed in order to give its refusal to bargain a color of legality in the first place. A great deal of time was spent on attempting to estab- lish or disprove a contention that the layoffs in question were conducted in accordance with the Respondent's past practice in layoff matters. It really does not matter whether they were or not because, as of March 5 at 4 p.m., the Respondent was confronted with a brand new situation; the requirement that it bargain collectively with the UAW over the wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment of its Bundy-Hillsdale employ- ees. Any allegation of a discharge in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act goes to the question of how the dis- charge was accomplished, not why it took place. It was the past practice of the Respondent to employ Bates, Vroman, and Hannibal. When that practice changed, or when any matter relating to that practice changed, the Respondent was under a duty to bargain about it if re- quested, and part of its duty, as indicated above, was to give the Union a meaningful opportunity to make a bar- gaining demand.7 This the Respondent plainly did not do. Its economic justification for these layoffs is hardly of the compelling kind mentioned in O'Connor Chevrolet, supra. The Respondent usually had a slowdown in the summer months when its "big three" customers also had slowdowns due to model changes. In 1987, a production change in the manner of producing pushrods, called "heat treating," actually called for additional man-hours per unit produced. The attempt to streamline its oper- ation and reduce inventory in conjunction with the JIT ' The evidence of the Respondent's past layoff practice in this record demonstrates that, whenever a layoff was in the offing , it posted a notice to this effect and solicited volunteers . If too many people volunteered, it accepted employee requests in order of seniority . If not enough volun- teered, then it laid off employees in order of inverse seniority. Part of its past practice was that, on those occasions when insufficient volunteers signed up for time off, the Respondent would go around and solicit addi- tional signatures in order to avoid the unpleasant necessity of an involun- tary layoff. It did none of these things on the occasions here in issue. Gilpin, a nonunit technician, was allowed to take a voluntary layoff under past practice. However, in March 1987 , when he volunteered for the layoff that was given to Bates, he was not allowed to go . As a result, Bates was involuntarily and abruptly laid off. Respondent admits that it followed a solicitation practice when con- fronted with a short-term layoff, i.e., 60-90 day reductions in force, but that it did not solicit volunteers and followed strict seniority by job clas- sification when a prospective layoff was of a longer character. There is nothing in writing which draws such a distinction . The Respondent pro- vided no rationale based on business judgment or necessity that would support an inference that such distinctions were in fact followed. The Conners-Bibbin memo establishing layoff and recall policies at Bundy- Hillsdale, dated December 5, 1979, draws no such distinction . The only disparate treatment suggested by this memo relates to probationary em- ployees, a distinction that is irrelevant to the issues at hand . The provi- sion entitled voluntary layoff policy found in the company handbook also draws no distinction between long-term and short-term layoffs. The handbook provision outlining the above-stated practices expressly covers layoffs in excess of 60 days "in thirty-day blocks" as being part of the Respondent's layoff policy, with all the attendant preliminaries . The dis- tinction being urged by the Respondent amounts to the setting up a cate- gory with so many exceptions and variations that it does not amount to a differential category with separately defined procedures. It was estab- lished for purposes of this litigation and provides no defense based on past practice to the Respondent's refusal to bargain with the Union on the occasions in question. program enabled the Respondent to eliminate some of its supervisory overhead. The only thing different about the 1987 slowdown and previous ones was that, in addition to receiving the regular monthly sales forecast from the main office, the Respondent's plant management at Bundy received another forecast from Gordon Bateman predicting a downturn for the balance of its fiscal year, which ended on July 31. This was not a long-range pre- diction or one that could form the rational basis for an indefinite layoff extending beyond 90 days. The scope of this prediction fitted well within what the Respondent insisted were the parameters of its standard past practice for. short-term layoffs. There was nothing in the Re- spondent's economic situation on either March 6 or May 15 that even remotely approximated an "emergency" sit- uation. Accordingly, there was no basis for it to avoid its statutory duty to bargain about these matters. Accord- ingly, by laying off Lowell Bates, Sheila Hannibal, and Rosemary Vroman without first notifying the Union and bargaining collectively in good faith concerning the lay- offs, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. 3. Failure to negotiate the increase in job duties associated with the JIT program The Respondent acknowledges that it did not notify the Union in advance that it was increasing the job duties of its production employees in May 1987, nor did it afford the Union an opportunity to bargain about these changes. Respondent's defense to this allegation in the consolidated complaint is that it did not have to bargain about this matter because the changes in question were de minimis. In fact, these changes were not de minimis either to the Respondent or to its employees. Every production operator took on a new function that he or she did not regularly perform in the past in securing stock and carting away production. Many of them were not even qualified to operate the forklifts that were necessary for the performance of these duties. They had to learn a new function and be certified to perform it. They also had to begin cleaning tips and doing other adjustments on their machines that technicians formerly performed. The time spent on these new duties varied as to individuals and varied from day or to day but, in some instances, could amount to as much as 2 hours' work a day. The savings in manpower to the Respondent from this revision of its production procedures enabled it to discharge one or more working foremen. Far from being de minimis, these changes were quite important and the importance of undertaking them without providing pro- duction employees additional pay for their additional duties can hardly be overstated. By failing to notify the Union in advance of these proposed changes and giving it an opportunity to bargain about them, the Respondent here violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. 4. Institution of the Quality of Work Life program (QWL) As in the case of the JIT program, the Respondent does not contend that it negotiated the institution of the QWL program at Bundy-Hillsdale with the Union. Its BUNDY CORP defense in this instance to its institution of this program is that the program was never implemented It is quite evident from the proposed agenda for the QWL steering committee, the facilitator, and the employee teams that they were to deal with terms and conditions of employ ment-he items to be sold by soft drink vending ma chines, the condition of the parking lot, air conditioning in the plant and many other items that are mandatory subjects of collective bargaining It is also quite evident that QWL was designed to deal with mandatory subjects of collective bargaining quite apart from the normal processes of collective bargaining as envisioned by the Act The methodology to be employed in the QWL pro gram was, in the language of conventional labor rela tions, to solicit grievances from employees with a view toward adjusting them through joint employer employee committees To deal with such subjects apart from the elected bargaining agent is to undermine its status and in trude on its functions In this case, Stebelton s remarks to the QWL training session at St Clair Shores reveal that the Respondents motivation for introducing QWL at Hillsdale was to counteract the effect of unionization and quite possibly to impede the effectiveness of the Union At Bundy, a steering committee was elected a facilita tor was chosen, and money was expended to train both the plant manager and the facilitator An employee team was selected and trained This is an implementation of the QWL program The fact that the team never got around to addressing and resolving a specific problem in the plant because the Union objected to the whole pro cedure in no way detracts from the fact that the program was put into effect The discontinuance of an unfair labor practice is not a defense to a Board order Accordingly, by implementing a program dealing with wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment in derogation of the Union's status as collective bargaining representative the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act 5 Delay in furnishing the Union requested information The obligation under Section 8(a)(5) of the Act on the part of an employer to supply the statutory bargaining agent with relevant information concerning matters to be negotiated is well and long established NLRB v Truitt Mfg Co 351 U S 149 ( 1956) Unreasonable delay in fur nishing such information is as much a violation of the Act as a refusal to furnish any information at all Quality Engineered Products Co, 267 NLRB 593 (1983), Califor nia Nevada Golden Tours 283 NLRB 58 (1987) In this case Spillman made a routine request for basic data con cerning wages and benefits Most of this information was already available at the Hillsdale plant His request was made on October 2 The Respondent could have re moved the requested information from a file drawer at Hillsdale and shipped it back to Spillman by return mail The rest could have been obtained by an interoffice tele phone call to company headquarters in Warren, Michi gan Most of the requested information was not supplied until sometime in mid December, and then only after fur ther written and oral requests had been made 679 The effect of this delay was to put the Union in a box Spillman told Clinton that he needed the information to formulate economic demands, and Clinton told Spillman he wanted to have the Unions demands in advance of the first bargaining session so he could study them By not supplying information in a timely fashion the Com pany prevented Spillman from presenting it with the pro posal it said it needed to commence negotiations The Respondent had already stalled negotiations for over 6 months by filing baseless objections It has also delayed the commencement of negotiations by not responding in a prompt and timely fashion to requests for a meeting date Now it was impeding the formulation of bargaining demands by taking over 2 months to supply the Union with information that was readily available There was no excuse for such procrastination and the Company of fered no credible excuse in the record Its footdragging in this matter was just another facet of a policy of stonewalling that it had already been following for many months By failing to provide the bargaining agent for its Hillsdale plant in a timely fashion with information that was relevant to collective bargaining, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act 6 The Respondents defense of limitations The Respondent contends that the Board is precluded from inquiring into the legality of the adoption of the JIT program and the QWL program in April and May 1987 because these events predated by more than 6 months an unfair labor practice charge that the Union filed on November 16 1987 This contention ignores the fact that the Union filed an 8(a)(1) and (3) charge on June 1, 1987, stating that management has changed their layoff procedure to discriminate against Union support ers It also ignores a subsequent charge, filed on June 20 which reiterated this charge and further stated AMEND Charge violation 8(a)(5) Management has re fused to bargain on any issues See letter dated 5/20/87 In NLRB v Font Milling Co, 360 U S 301 307 308 (1959), the Supreme Court characterized the function and scope of an unfair labor practice charge as follows A charge filed with the Labor Board is not to be measured by the standards applicable to a pleading in a private law suit Its purpose is merely to set in motion the machinery of an inquiry NLRB v I & M Electric Co 318 U S 9 18 The responsibility of making that inquiry and of framing the issues in the case is one that Congress has imposed upon the Board, not the charging party To confine the Board in its inquiry and in framing the complaint to the specific matters alleged in the charge would reduce the statutory machinery to a vehicle for the vindication of private rights This would be alien to the basic purpose of the Act The Board was cre ated not to adjudicate private controversies but to advance the public interest in eliminating obstruc tions to interstate commerce Once its jurisdiction is invoked the Board must be left free to make full inquiry under its broad in vestigatory power in order properly to discharge 680 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the duty of protecting public. rights which Congress has imposed upon it. There can be no justification for confining such an inquiry to the precise particu- larizations of the charge. In this case, the Union charged on June 20 that the Re- spondent violated Section 8(a)(5) by refusing to bargain "on any issues." This phrase is certainly broad enough to embrace any of the issues that the Respondent is charged with in the complaint in failing to negotiate in March, April, and May. It necessarily includes the QWL pro- gram and the JIT job enlargement question. According- ly, the Respondent's defense of limitations must be over- ruled. On these findings of fact and on the entire record con- sidered as a whole, I make the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Bundy Corporation is now, and at all times material has been, an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act. 2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. All full-time and regular part-time production and maintenance employees, including shipping, receiving, and quality control employees employed by the Re- spondent at its Hillsdale, Michigan facility, but excluding all technical, professional, confidential, managerial, and office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as de- fined in the Act constitute a unit appropriate for collec- tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 4. Since March 5, 1987, and. continuing to date, the Union has been the exclusive collective-bargaining repre- sentative within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act for all the Respondent's employees employed in the unit set forth in Conclusion of Law 3. 5. By failing and refusing to notify the Union in ad- vance and to bargain collectively with the Union con- cerning the layoffs of bargaining unit employees Lowell Bates, Sheila Hannibal, and Rosemary Vroman; by fail- ing and refusing to notify the Union in advance and to bargain collectively with the Union concerning the as- signment of additional duties to bargaining unit employ- ees in connection with its JIT program; by instituting and implementing a QWL program; and by failing to supply the Union in a timely fashion with relevant infor- mation that was requested for purposes of collective bar- gaining, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. 6. By the acts and conduct set forth above in Conclu- sion of Law 5, and by coercively interrogating and be- rating employees concerning their union sympathies and activities, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 7. The acts have a close, intimate, and substantial effect on the free flow of commerce within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the Act. REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has committed vari- ous unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it be required to cease and desist therefrom and to take other actions designed to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act. Because the violations of the Act found herein are repeated, pervasive, and evidence a continuing disposition on the part of this Respondent to ignore total- ly the rights of its employees, I will recommend to the Board a so-called broad 8(a)(1) remedy which is de- signed to suppress any and all violations of that section of the Act. Hickmott Foods, 242 NLRB 1357. I will rec- ommend to the Board that the Respondent be required to bargain collectively in good faith with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its Hillsdale employees. Because it failed to do so in this case, I will recommend a standard remedy in unilateral change cases, namely, that the Respondent restore the status quo. This will include the elimination of additional job duties that were assigned to unit employees without prior bargaining and the discontinuance of the QWL program. Because bargaining in good faith over the three discharges at issue could well have brought about an- other result and because the record in this case is perme- ated with antiunion animus on the part of the Respond- ent, I will recommend to the Board a standard reinstate- ment and make-whole remedy usually used in discrimina- tory discharge cases, namely, offers of reinstatement to former or substantially equivalent positions, without prej- udice to loss of seniority or to other benefits previously enjoyed, and backpay and payment for any loss of bene- fits, computed in accordance with the formula set forth in the Woolworth case8 with interest thereon at the short- term Federal rate used to compute interest on underpay- ments and overpayments of Federal income taxes under the Tax Reform Act of 1986. New Horizons for the Re- tarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). The General Counsel has required a so-called visitatorial clause permitting the use of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for discovery in the event a contempt proceeding arises out of this case. I regard such a clause as a necessary adjunct to enforce- ment in this matter and will grant that request. Cherokee Marine Terminal, 287 NLRB 1080 (1988). I will also rec- ommend that the Respondent be required to post the usual notice, advising its employees of their rights and of the results in this case. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed9 ORDER The Respondent, Bundy Corporation, Hillsdale, Michi- gan, its officers, agents, supervisors, successors, and as- signs, shall 8 F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950). 9 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. BUNDY CORP 1 Cease and desist from (a) Coercively interrogating and berating employees concerning their union sympathies and union activities (b) Refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with the International Union United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) as the exclusive collective bargaining representa tive of its production and maintenance employees em ployed in the Hillsdale, Michigap bargaining unit (c) Unilaterally changing wages, hours, or terms and conditions of bargaining unit employees without notify ing the Union and affording it an opportunity to bargain over such changes (d) Instituting a Quality of Work Life program or any other similar programs or practices designed to consider and resolve matters affecting wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment by directly soliciting grievances from employees and bypassing the Union in considering and resolving such grievances (e) Laying off discharging, or otherwise affecting the hire or tenure of bargaining unit employees without noti fying the Union and affording it an opportunity to bar gain over such changes (f) Failing to furnish the Union in a timely fashion with relevant information that it requested for purposes of collective bargaining (g) By any other means or in any other manner inter fering with, restraining or coercing employees in the ex excise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative actions necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Offer to Lowell Bates Sheila Hannibal and Rose mary Vroman full and immediate reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent employment without prejudice to their seniority or to other rights previously enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay or benefits that they may have suffered by reason of the un lawful conduct found in the manner described above in the remedy section of this decision (b) On request bargain collectively in good faith with the Union as the exclusive collective bargaining repre sentative of its Hillsdale Michigan employees (c) Eliminate from the job duties of bargaining unit employees employed by the Respondent at its Hillsdale Michigan plant any additional duties that were unilater ally assigned to them since the Union became their bar gaining representative (d) On request furnish the Union in a timely fashion with any information that is relevant for purposes of col lective bargaining (e) Post at the Respondents Hillsdale Michigan plant copies of the attached notice marked Appendix 10 Copies of said notice on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7 shall be posted immediately upon receipt and maintained by the Respondent for 60 consec utive days in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted Rea 10 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 at 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 681 sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that said 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 For the purpose of deter mining or securing compliance with this Order the Board or any of its duly authorized representatives may obtain discovery from the Respondent, its officers agents, successors, or assigns, or from any other person having knowledge concerning any compliance matter, in the manner provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Pro cedure Such discovery shall be conducted under the su pervision of the United States court of appeals enforcing this Order and may be had upon any matter reasonably related to compliance with this Order as enforced by the court 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 coercively interrogate or berate em ployees concerning their union sympathies and union ac tivities WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively in good faith with the International Union United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of the production and maintenance em ployees employed inthe Hillsdale Michigan bargaining unit WE WILL NOT unilaterally change wages hours or terms and conditions of employment of bargaining unit employees without notifying the Union and affording it an opportunity to bargain over such changes WE WILL NOT institute a Quality of Life program or any other similar programs or practices designed to con sider and resolve matters affecting wages hours and terms and conditions of employment by directly solicit ing grievances from employees and bypassing the Union in considering and resolving such grievance WE WILL NOT lay off discharge or otherwise affect the hire or tenure of bargaining unit employees without notifying the Union and affording it an opportunity to bargain over such changes WE WILL NOT fail to furnish the Union in a timely fashion with relevant information that it requested for purposes of collective bargaining WE WILL NOT by any other means or in any other manner interfere with restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act WE WILL offer to Lowell Bates Sheila Hannibal and Rosemary Vroman full and immediate reinstatement to 682 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD their former or substantially equivalent employment, without prejudice to their seniority or to other rights previously enjoyed, and WE WILL make them whole for any loss of pay or benefits that they may have suffered by reason of the unlawful conduct -found by the Board, with interest. WE WILL, on request, bargain collectively in good faith with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargain- ing representative of its Hillsdale, Michigan employees. WE WILL eliminate from the job duties of bargaining unit employees any additional duties that were unilateral- ly assigned to them since the Union became their bar- gaining representative. WE WILL, on request, furnish the Union in a timely fashion with any information that is relevant for purposes of collective bargaining. BUNDY CORPORATION