Induction Services, Inc

INDUCTION SERVICES 863 Induction Services, Inc and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW Case 7- CA-27306 February 7, 1989 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS CRACRAFT AND HIGGINS On November 17, 1988, Administrative Law Judge Irwin Kaplan 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 and to adopt the recommended Order ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, Induction Services, Inc, Warren, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order unlawfully refused to sign a collective bargaining agree ment arrived at by the parties and that the Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act The Respondent filed an answer conceding, inter alia, that the Union is the exclusive collective bargaining rep resentative for Respondents employees in an appropriate unit and also conceded the supervisory and agency status of certain individuals named in the complaint It denied that it committed any unfair labor practices In particu lar, the Respondent contends that the agreement reached by the parties was subject to the approval of Respond ent's legal counsel," which condition had not been ob tamed Based on the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses as they testified, and after careful consideration of the posttnal briefs, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION The Respondent is a Michigan corporation with its principal office and place of business in Warren, Michi gan, where it is engaged in the induction heat treating of automotive parts During the fiscal year ending June 30, 1987, a representative timeframe, the Respondent, inter alia, shipped goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 from its locations in Michigan directly to points located outside the State of Michigan The Respondent admits, and I find, that it is an em ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec tion 2(2) of the Act ' The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge s credibility find mgs The Board s established policy is not to overrule an administrative law judges credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry Wall Products 91 NLRB 544 ( 1950) enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951) We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings Dwight R Kirksey Esq, for the General Counsel Richard J Fritz Esq (Stnngan Fritz Kreger Ahearn Bennett & Hunsinger PC), of Detroit, Michigan, for the Respondent Ramona Allison, International Representative, of Warren, Michigan, for the Charging Party DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE IRWIN KAPLAN Administrative Law Judge This case was heard in Detroit, Michigan, on January 19, 1988 The underlying charges were filed on September 10, 1987, by the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, and its Local 360 (the Union or Charg Ing Party) against Induction Services, Inc (Respondent) alleging the Respondent engaged in conduct in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Rela tions Act (the Act) These charges gave rise to a coin plaint and notice of hearing dated October 19, 1987 The gravamen of the complaint is that the Respondent has 292 NLRB No 98 II THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A Background and Sequence of Events On July 21, 1986, the Union was certified pursuant to a Board conducted election as the exclusive collective bargaining representative for Respondent's production and maintenance employees (G C Exh 1 (c), par 9) On or about October 1 1986 the parties first met to negoti ate their initial collective bargaining agreement James Sawyer, the Union s chief negotiator was unable to attend that initial session and his place was taken by Romona Allison She was joined by Bernice Vander Bosh, the then president of Local 360, and two employee committee members Alberta McGow and Helen To majko The Respondent was represented by David DeArment, its owner and president Basically, all that occurred at that first session was that Allison presented the Union s proposals and explained them on a page by page basis (G C Exh 2) The parties met again approximately 1 week later Sawyer attended this meeting as the Union's chief nego tiator He was joined by McGow and Tomajko (McGow and Tomajko attended all the sessions but nei ther one testified) The Respondent was again represent ed only by DeArment As testified to by Sawyer, he asked DeArment if he had an attorney and the latter re sponded in the negative stating that he could not afford an attorney Sawyer then set the ground rules The par 864 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ties negotiated from the Union s proposals (G C Exh 2) as a frame of reference and as they agreed on a proposal they were to initial it signifying their tentative agreement until they reached a total package That final package was subject to employee ratification Although DeAr ment largely corroborated Sawyer s account including that portion dealing with the costliness of retaining an at torney to negotiate, DeArment also asserted that he told Sawyer that he would have his attorney look over the Agreement after its over " In all, Sawyer attended 12 bargaining sessions DeAr ment attended most of these sessions and at times he was accompanied by Plant Manager Michael Oberg and Sales Manager Eric Lorentzen At the two or three bargaining meetings not attended by DeArment, the Respondent was represented by Oberg and Lorentzen In the period covering the 12 bargaining sessions, the subject of the company attorney came up again only in connection with the managements rights provision and arbitration As to these sessions, DeArment told Sawyer he wanted to consult his attorney According to Sawyer, this was the first time that DeArment said anything about having an attorney Sawyer testified that they tabled further discussion on the managements rights pro vision to give DeArment's attorney an opportunity to ex amine the Union s proposal DeArment canceled the next meeting because he was unable to reach his attorney The parties reached agreement on managements rights and arbitration on January 12 1987 1 as signified, inter alia, by their initials on that date (G C Exh 3, pp 6-8) In early 1987 the Union s regional director assigned Allison to replace Sawyer to service Respondents unit employees Thus, on February 5 Sawyer accompanied Allison to Respondents facility and introduced her to Oberg and Lorentzen From that day forward, Allison served as the Union s chief spokesperson at the bargain ing sessions DeArment did not attend the February 5 meeting and only later in May did he briefly meet with Allison to confirm a final offer Sawyer did not attend any meeting after February 5 Allison was told by Oberg and Lorentzen that before they would initial any provision they had to have DeAr ment s approval After several bargaining sessions (prob ably March) Allison suggested that Oberg and Lorent zen invite their attorney to attend because they were having problems with contract language and she Alli son, had accused them of not bargaining in good faith This was the first time that an attorney was mentioned while Allison was involved in the negotiations and it was Allison who introduced the subject Allison testified that Oberg responded that the Company would wait until the contract was complete and then they would have their attorney read it and make sure it was what they had agreed to According to Oberg, he told Allison that after the parties reached a final agreement the contract would be turned over to the company attorney for his "interpretation and approval By late May, the parties had reached agreement on all the contract provisions except sickness and accident (S and A) benefits Allison asked Oberg and Lorentzen to ` All dates refer to 1987 unless otherwise indicated have DeArment join them at the bargaining table to con firm that the Union had the Company s final offer DeArment was then called in and informed Allison that he was not going to spend another dime and that the Union had the Company s final offer Allison asked DeArment whether he wanted the Union to take this final offer to the unit employees for a ratification and the latter responded in the affirmative On Sunday, May 31 the bargaining unit voted to reject the contract because it did not contain S and A benefits On Monday, June 1, Allison called Oberg and told him that the membership had rejected the contract and asked for another meeting to resume negotiations Oberg agreed to meet that Thursday although he indi cated that he did not think there would be any change in the Company s final offer Allison and the two union committee members met with Oberg and Lorentzen on Thursday June 4 as scheduled The S and A provision was the only out standing issue separating the parties at that time Howev er sometime before this meeting began, DeArment told Oberg that he would be amenable to the S and A bene fits if the Union allowed foremen and other nonunit indi viduals to perform setup functions (The unit as certified expressly includes setup employees) The parties reached an agreement which (as explained by Allison), in essence, grandfathered all then current setup employees, but per mitted certain named nonunit individuals including David DeArment and Mike Oberg, to also perform setup work The agreement was memorialized on company sta tionery as an attachment to the collective bargaining agreement (See attachment to G C Exh 4 company let terhead dated June 4, 1987) In turn the Respondent agreed to provide Accident and Sickness of $10000 per week for a maximum of twenty six (26) weeks (G C Exh 3, p 26 art XX (d) Tr 31 ) Allison told Oberg and Lorentzen that another ratifi cation meeting would be held that Sunday June 7 They questioned Allison about the effective dates for wages sickness and accident, life insurance, and other benefits to which the latter responded that the contract would be effective on the date of ratification The company repre sentatives noted that there might be some problems re flecting the wage increases in the computer on Monday morning and it might take 1 to 2 weeks before employees actually received the wage increases Allison told them that she would have the contract typed and prepared for signature but it might take a few weeks She also prom ised to have a copy of the contract for the Company s attorney for his perusal to make sure that it was as they agreed to (Tr 40 ) The unit employees ratified the contract on June 7 Al lison so advised Oberg the following morning and she also repeated her promise of the previous week that she would try to have the final contract prepared for signa lure and to meet with him in about 2 weeks, and Oberg agreed About June 21 Allison visited the Respondents facility and met with Oberg and Lorentzen She handed them three or four copies of the final agreement and noted that one copy was for the Company s attorney to look INDUCTION SERVICES over Allison also urged Oberg and Lorentzen to get back to her as quickly as they could " Oberg told Alli son that it would probably take 2 or 3 weeks Approxi mately 3 weeks later Allison called Oberg and inquired whether the Company was ready to sign the agreement Oberg told Allison that the matter was in DeArment s hands and that she, Allison, could expect to hear from the Company in a few days The Company did not contact Allison and the latter was unsuccessful in reaching DeArment although she called twice a week over the next 4 or 5 weeks Further, Allison, by letter dated August 25, wrote to DeArment asking to get together to sign the agreement and noting that the Company has not responded to her numerous" phone messages (G C Exh 7) The Company did not respond to Allison s letter and she filed the instant charges on September 10 Soon after the charges were filed, Lorentzen phoned Allison and apologized for the long delay but noted that the attorney was having some problems with the agree ment and asked for a meeting About September 25 Alli son along with the two union committee members, met with Oberg and Lorentzen The company representatives handed Allison a copy of a letter sent by Respondent's attorney, Richard Fritz, to DeArment containing the at torney's comments regarding certain provisions in the agreement (G C Exh 6) This included certain changes in dealing with seniority, leaves of absences, and vacs tions which Fritz indicated would be preferable to the Company At the September 25 meeting, the Union indicated a willingness to clarify the contract language and agree to the few changes proposed by Attorney Fritz and to do so in a letter of understanding, provided the Company agreed to modify the provision dealing with temporary employees The provision previously negotiated permit ted the Company to consider" temporary employees for full employment after 60 days The Union now proposed that temporary employees will be full time employees' after the 60 day period The Company rejected the Union s proposal and refused to make any changes re garding temporary employees from the previously agreed on provision Allison then reverted to her earlier position and insisted that the Company sign the agree ment as negotiated and ratified The parties have not ne gotiated since September 25 B Discussion and Conclusions The central issue in this case is whether DeArment or any other company official conveyed to the Union that the Respondent's attorney s approval was a condition precedent to any final and binding collective bargaining agreement Such notice must be clearly or unambiguous ly conveyed See generally Cablevision Industries, 283 NLRB 22 (1987), University of Bridgeport, 229 NLRB 1074, 1082-1083 (1977) I find, largely on the basis of credibility, that at no time material had the Respondent made the contract subject to his attorney s approval 2 At 2 The General Counsel s case rests largely on the credibility of Allison and Sawyer I found them both to be responsive consistent plausible and forthright In particular it is noted that Allison s critical testimony re 865 best, the Respondent merely indicated that before he would execute any contract, he would have his attorney look over the document to confirm that it comported to what the parties negotiated and agreed Compare, Park view Furniture Mfg Co 284 NLRB 947 (1987) (the cru cial inquiry is whether the parties reached agreement) The uncontradicted and credited testimony disclosed that Sawyer asked DeArment at their first bargaining session together whether he was going to have an attor ney present at the negotiations DeArment responded in the negative, stating, in essence, that it was too costly (The parties met one time prior to this meeting, but Alli son substituted for DeArment and nothing was then said about an attorney ) Even DeArment s testimony falls short of reasonably conveying that his attorney had any veto power Thus, DeArment testified that he told Sawyer that he could not afford an attorney to negotiate at that time, but he (the attorney) would look over (emphasis added) every thing we did (Tr 130) In context, and based on the entire record I am persuaded that DeArment merely re served the right to consult an attorney at any time and to ensure that the contract reflected his agreement Indeed, this happened in regard to the managements rights and arbitration provisions Thus, before DeArment initialed those provisions signifying his agreement, he told Sawyer that he had to consult his attorney and then can celed one meeting because he was unable to reach his at torney During negotiations, DeArment made no other reference to his attorney As noted previously on or about February 5, 1987 Allison replaced Sawyer as the Union s chief negotiator Allison also denied that she was told that the Company s attorney had to approve the contract She testified credi bly that several meetings later Oberg and Lorentzen told her for the first time that an attorney would look over the final document to make sure that it conformed to their agreement Although Oberg and Lorentzen testi feed that they also told Allison that the contract was sub ject to their attorney s interpretation and approval, I reject their testimony as unreliable I found them both to be elusive vague unresponsive, implausible, to have ex hibited poor recall and they were otherwise of un impressive demeanor It is noted, for example, as ac knowledged by Oberg, that neither he nor Lorentzen said anything about an attorney until the fourth or fifth bargaining session with Allison and only after the latter had become frustrated with their inexperience It is un disputed that on that occasion Allison urged Oberg and Lorentzen to invite their (unnamed) attorney to partici pate in the negotiations Oberg testified that at the time counting the events after the first ratification meeting went virtually un contradicted On the basis of demeanor factors and my assessment of their overall testimony I credit the testimony of Allison and Sawyer Al though it is also noted that McGow and Tomajko members of the union bargaining committee did not testify I am unpersuaded that a sufficient basis has been demonstrated to support an adverse inference as argued by Respondent in its brief It appears that McGow and Tomaiko were still employed by Respondent at the time of hearing and in any event there is no basis for inferring that McGow and Tomajko [were] not equally avail able to be called as a witness by both Respondent and the General Coun sel Wayne Construction 259 NLRB 571 fn 1 (1981) 866 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in question he was uncertain who the attorney was or whether an attorney had been retained (Tr 120-121 ) In the circumstances of this case, I find it highly un likely and implausible that Oberg and/or Lorentzen told Allison that approval' of the contract by their attorney was required given their vague testimony about the at torney s identity, and that they admittedly said nothing to Allison about an attorney until the fourth or fifth bar gaining session and only after the latter introduced the subject Having determined that the contract was not subject to the approval of Respondent's attorney I turn now to consider whether the parties reached a final and binding agreement The credited testimony disclosed that by late May 1987, the parties reached a tentative agreement on all the terms and conditions of a contract with the exception of sickness and accident benefits It is undisputed that Alli son asked Oberg and Lorentzen to summon their pnnci pal (DeArment) because she wanted to hear it from DeArment himself that he had made his final offer Thus, DeArment joined the other negotiators briefly and de Glared that he would not provide another dime and that he had made his final offer It is undisputed that the Company understood that any final agreement had to be ratified by the unit employees At the close of the session in late May, Allison told the company officials that their final offer (without sickness and accident benefits) would be presented to the mem bership the upcoming Sunday for a ratification vote In fact, DeArment first acknowledged that had the mem bership voted in favor the parties had a contract (Tr 137-139) Nothing was said about the company attorney having to approve the agreement at that time Although DeArment retreated moments later (Tr 140), I do not credit his changed testimony In testifying on this critical point (as in other areas), I found DeArment elusive vague, unresponsive, inconsistent conclusionary and less than forthright As noted previously, the union membership rejected the contract over the S and A provision The Company was officially advised the following morning and a meet ing was arranged for June 4 to resume negotiations DeArment met with Oberg and Lorentzen sometime before the June 4 bargaining session and authorized them to agree to sickness and accident benefits if the Union would allow nonunit individuals to perform setups At the June 4 session, Oberg, pursuant to DeArment s instructions, offered the Union the tradeoff and the par ties then reached full agreement subject only to employ ee ratification Allison and Oberg signified their respec tive agreement by their initials (G C Exh 3, p 26, art XX, sec 91 (d)) and a so called memorandum of under standing dealing with setup prepared by Respondent on company stationery (See attachment to G C Exh 4 dated June 4 1987) Oberg belatedly acknowledged that every provision he initialed had the approval of DeAr ment (Tr 123) As stated by DeArment, Oberg s initials would be just as well if I had done it ' (Tr 144) The undisputed and credited testimony disclosed that while the parties discussed and understood that the contract would be effective on ratification Oberg told Allison that it might take the computer approximately 1 or 2 weeks to reflect the new payroll changes Allison did not deem any such delay a problem because the employees would then be paid retroactively Thus, as noted above, the parties reached a full agreement on June 4, subject only to employee ratification The following day, Allison communicated the results of the favorable ratification vote to Oberg on the tele phone and she also told Oberg that she would meet with him in a few weeks after the Union had prepared and typed the contract in final form for signature Oberg agreed but reminded Allison of probable computer prob lems with the payroll It is well settled that an employer violates Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by refusing to execute a writ ten contract incorporating the terms and conditions of a collective bargaining agreement reached with the Union representing its employees H P Heinz Co v NLRB, 311 U S 514, 525-526 (1941), NLRB v Strong, 393 U S 357, 359 (1969) However, where, as here, a final agree ment was subject to employee ratification, the employ er's obligation does not arise until the condition is satis fled (although the employer is not free to challenge the ratification procedure) See, e g, Ben Franklin National Bank, 278 NLRB 986 (1986), Childers Products Co, 276 NLRB 709 (1985), Newton Corp, 280 NLRB 350 (1986), enfd 819 F 2d 677 (6th Cir 1987) Having found that the parties reached a complete ten tative agreement subject only to employee ratification, which condition became satisfied on June 7, 1987, 1 fur ther find that the Respondent immediately became obli gated to sign a written document embodying the terms and conditions of its agreement when such document was presented and the Union so requested See John Morrell & Co, 268 NLRB 304, 306 (1983) Gentzer Tool & Dye Corp, 268 NLRB 330 332 (1983) Felbro Inc 274 NLRB 1268 (1985) enfd in relevant part 795 F 2d 705 (9th Cir 1986) The record further revealed that about June 23 Alli son appeared at Respondents facility armed with typed copies of the final agreement She met with and provided three or four copies to Oberg and Lorentzen and noted that one of the copies was for the attorney As noted previously, the Company s attorney was to ensure that the contract reflected the agreement of the parties Alli son asked Oberg to have the agreement signed and to get back to her as quickly as possible Oberg indicated that he would probably" get back to her in 2 or 3 weeks Allison called Oberg approximately 3 weeks later and was told that DeArment was handling the matter and that he would be getting back to her in a few days DeArment did not reach out for Allison nor did he return her numerous calls over the next 4 to 6 weeks until the instant charges were filed In September after the instant charges were filed, Re spondent asked Allison for certain changes recommended by its attorney There is no evidence nor does the record disclose that the document that Allison presented Oberg about June 23 failed to conform to all the terms and conditions agreed to by the parties as ratified on June 7 In these circumstances and on the basis of the INDUCTION SERVICES 867 entire record, I am persuaded and I find that the Re spondent s failure to execute the wntten ratified agree ment as submitted is violative of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 The Respondent, Induction Services, Inc, is an em ployer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act 2 International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act 3 All full time and regular part time production and maintenance employees, shipping and receiving employ ees, setup employees, quality control employees, coil builder employees, and truckdnvers employed by the Respondent at its facility located at 24800 Mound Road, Warren, Michigan, but excluding all office clerical em ployees professional employees, confidential employees, managerial employees and guards and supervisors as de fined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act 4 At all times relevant to this case, the Union has been and is now the exclusive collective bargaining rep resentative of the employees in the unit described above within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act 5 About June 4, 1987, the Respondent and the Union reached agreement on all the terms and conditions of a collective bargaining agreement covering the employees of the Respondent in the above-described unit subject only to employee ratification, which event occurred on June 7, 1987 6 About June 23, 1987, the Union submitted the col lective bargaining agreement referred to in paragraph 5, above, to Respondent for signature by Respondents rep resentatives 7 As a consequence of the agreement reached by the parties as ratified, the Respondent incurred the statutory obligation to execute a written contract incorporating that agreement but, since on or about June 23 1987, and all times thereafter has failed and refused to do so 8 The Respondent by refusing since about June 23 1987, to execute the written contract incorporating the agreement reached between it and the Union, has failed and refused to bargain collectively and in good faith with the exclusive collective bargaining representative of its employees, and the Respondent thereby has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer tarn unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be required to cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action necessary to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act Having further found that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing and refusing to execute a written agreement reached with the Union, I shall recommend that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist and to sign the agreement Also I shall recommend that the Respondent be ordered to give effect to the terms of this agreement retroactive to the effective dates, and that the employees shall be made whole for losses they may have suffered by reason of the failure of the Respondent to sign this agreement,3 to be computed in the manner prescribed in Ogle Protec tion Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), plus interest as pre scribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987) On the basis of the above findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I issue the following recommended4 ORDER The Respondent, Induction Services, Inc Warren, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1 Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to bargain collectively and in good faith with the International Union, United Automobile, Aero space and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, by declining to execute a written agreement em bodying the terms of the contract fully agreed to on June 4, 1987, and ratified by employees on June 7, 1987 (b) In any like or related manner interfering with re straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act (a) Sign the collective bargaining agreement containing the terms and conditions of employment agreed to be tween the Respondent and the Union on June 4, 1987, and ratified on June 7, 1987, and give retroactive effect to its terms and conditions, and make employees whole for losses, if any, they may have suffered as a result of its refusal to sign such agreement, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision (b) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying all pay roll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports and all other records nec essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order (c) Post at its Warren, Michigan facility copies of the attached notice marked Appendix 5 Copies of the 8 The Board may properly prevent the Respondents from gaming an advantage by their unlawful conduct An order requiring that the em ployees be made whole for the unlawful repudiation of a collective bar gaming agreement serves this end NLRB v DMR Corp 795 F 2d 472 123 (5th Ctr 1988) see also John Morrell & Co 268 NLRB 304 (1983) 4 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board s Rules and Regulations th3e 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 6 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 868 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being signed by the Respondent's author- ized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecu- tive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. (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. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively regarding wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employ- ment with International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW as the exclusive representative of our employees in the following unit: All full-time and regular part-time production and maintenance employees, shipping and receiving em- ployees, quality control employees , coil builder em- ployees, and truckdrivers employed by us at our fa- cility located at 24800 Mound Road, Warren, Michigan; but excluding all office clerical employ- ees, confidential employees , managerial employees and guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL NOT refuse to execute the contract with the Union that was agreed to on June 4, 1987, and ratified by our employees on June 7, 1987. WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to give effect to the terms and provisions of the agreed-on contract with the Union. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL sign the collective -bargaining agreement containing the terms and conditions of employment agreed to between us and the Union and ratified by our employees on June 7, 1987. WE WILL give retroactive effect to its terms and con- ditions and make our employees whole for losses , if any, which they have suffered as a result of our refusal to sign a contract, with interest. INDUCTION SERVICES, INC.