Ambac International Ltd.

AMBAC INTERNATIONAL 505 AMBAC International Limited and Local 112, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO, CLC. Cases 1- CA-25801, 1-CA-25943, and 1-CA-26168 August 20, 1990 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS CRACRAFT AND DEVANEY On September 18, 1989, Administrative Law Judge David L Evans issued the attached decision The Respondent filed exceptions and a supportmg bnef, and the General Counsel filed a brief in sup- port of the judge's decision 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 bnefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions only to the extent consistent with this Decision and Order The judge concluded that the Respondent un- lawfully withdrew recognition of the Union, find- ing msufficient support for the Respondent's de- fense that it entertained a reasonable doubt of the Union's continuing majonty status as representative of the bargaining unit employees In consequence of this 8(a)(5) violation, the judge concluded that the Respondent also violated Section 8(a)(5) by im- plementing several unilateral changes in the em- ployees' terms and conditions of employment fol- lowing its withdrawal of recognition As explained below, we disagree with the judge's analysis of the Respondent's defense, and we conclude that the withdrawal of recognition was valid and that the subsequent changes in employment conditions were not unlawful Thus, we will dismiss the complaint The significant facts are as follows In late summer 1988, 1 the Respondent, a successor em- ployer, and the Union had been engaged in collec- tive bargaining for a new agreement for about a year, there had been 15 negotiating sessions up to this time The predecessor employer's contract with the Union, whose obligations the Respondent had assumed when it purchased the predecessor's facility in 1987, had expired by this time By letter dated August 29, a time between scheduled bar- gaining sessions, the Respondent informed the Union that it was withdrawing recognition based on objective evidence it had received showmg that the Union no longer represented a majority of unit employees The Respondent invited the Union to 1 All dates are in 1988 unless otherwise noted review its evidence, and soon thereafter the Union's representative was shown five letters which had been delivered to the Respondent, each dated August 22, each signed by one member of the 10-employee bargaining unit, and each stating the following I believe my interests might best be served through individual, direct negotiation with AMBAC International, not through a third party, presently Local 112, IFPTE By letter dated September 7, and subsequently by letter dated September 14, the Union notified the Respondent that it possessed objective evidence that a majonty of the unit employees had affirmed their support of the Union, and that the Respond- ent was free to verify its evidence Included in the September 14 letter were copies of individual state- ments signed by 7 of the 10 umt employees, each dated either September 6 or 7, and each declaring continued support for the Union as collective-bar- gaining representative 2 In essence, the Respond- ent's reply to both of the Union's letters was to recommend that the Union file a representation pe- tition with the Board On September 8, the Re- spondent terminated the deduction of union dues from the unit employees' paychecks, a practice it had continued after the expiration of the collective- bargaining agreement, which had union-secunty and checkoff provisions Beginning in November, the Respondent made several unilateral changes in the unit employees' terms and conditions of em- ployment Unit employee George Gifford testified at the hearing that pnor to the events above, -apparently in June, he had a discussion with Gary Mistalski, the Respondent's operations manager, about the poor progress of negotiations Thereafter, he showed Mistalski a draft of what apparently was a statement of resignation from union membership 3 Mistalslu expressed the opinion that it was not "suf- ficient," and he drafted a version and showed it to Gifford Gifford rejected MistsIsla's draft of the resignation statement At a subsequent time, after consultation with other bargaining unit members, Gifford drafted the language of the August 22 let- ters, and he delivered at least a few of the five signed letters to Mistalslu There is no evidence that Mistalski participated in the drafting of the language of these letters, or that he consulted with Gifford or other employees concerning them 2 Two unit employees signing these statements also signed the August 22 letters delivered to the Respondent 3 Gifford testified that "I did present Mr MistaIsla with something to the extent that I preferred to not be in the Union" No documents were placed in evidence concerning this matter 299 NLRB No 66 506 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The judge found that the message contained in the August 22 letters was ambiguous, rather than a clear statement of the five employees' desire to re- pudiate the Union as their collective-bargaining representative In his view, the message, at most, could be interpreted either as a statement of dissat- isfaction with the Union's effectiveness in negotia- tions for a new contract, or as a merely hypotheti- cal suggestion concerning the possible results avail- able through individual bargaining with the Re- spondent Combimng the absence of a clear repudi- ation of the Union with the Respondent's refusal to consider the Union's unambiguous evidence of its continued majority support, i e, the September 6 and 7 statements of the seven unit employees, the judge concluded that the Respondent's withdrawal of recognition on August 29 was made in bad faith and violated Section 8(a)(5) He further concluded that the Respondent's subsequent changes in terms and conditions of employment, including the dis- continuance of checkoff, also violated Section 8(a)(5) because the Respondent did not bargain with the Union concerning them We do not agree with the judge's evaluation of the August 22 letters or with his overall analysis of the Respondent's defense that it had a reasonable doubt of the Union's majority support on August 29 The essential principles are well established re- garding the presumption of a union's majority sup- port as collective-bargaining representative and the circumstances in which an employer lawfully may withdraw recognition See, e g, Hajoca Corp, 291 NLRB 104 (1988), enfd 872 F 2d 1169 (3d Cir 1989), Station KKHI, 284 NLRB 1339 (1987), enfd 891 F 2d 230 (9th Cir 1989) Thus, in the absence of unusual circumstances, there is an irrebuttable presumption that a union has majority status during the year followmg its certification by the Board There is a similarly irrebuttable presumption of the Union's majority support during the term of a col- lective-bargaining agreement At the expiration of the certification year, or at the expiration of the contract, whichever the case may be, the presump- tion continues, but it is rebuttable An employer who wishes to withdraw recognition at the expira- tion of the certification year or of the contract may do so m either of two ways (1) by showing that on the date the employer refused to bargain the union did not in fact enjoy majority status, or (2) by pre- senting evidence of a sufficient objective basis to support a reasonable doubt of the Union's majority support among the employees at the time the em- ployer withdrew recognition Hajoca Corp, supra at 105 and cases cited there These principles are fully applicable to a successor employer, such as the Respondent in this case See, e g, Harley-Da- vidson Co, 273 NLRB 1531 (1985) We address as a threshold matter the judge's er- roneous reliance on evidence of union support postdating the withdrawal of recognition in reach- ing his conclusion that the Respondent violated the Act The critical date for the evaluation of a rea- sonable-doubt defense, the Respondent's position in this case, is the date that the employer withdraws recognition facts regarding union support ascertained after the refusal to bargain are not controlling, or even guiding, in determining whether the Employer had a reasonable basis for doubt at the time it refused to bargain Rather, what is controllmg is whether the Respondent had a reasonable basis for doubt at the time it re- fused to bargain Orion Corp, 210 NLRB 633, 634 (1974), enfd 515 F 2d 81 (7th Cir 1975) Further, if the employer successfully proves that it had a reasonable doubt of the union's majority on the day it withdrew rec- ognition, this showing constitutes a complete de- fense In such circumstances, proof that the union in fact represented a majority of the employees on the date in question (or, a fortiori, thereafter) is ir- relevant See, e g, Arkay Packaging Corp, 227 NLRB 397, 398 (1976), affd sub nom Graphic Communications Local 51 v NLRB, 575 F 2d 1045 (2d Or 1978) Accordmgly, we place no signifi- cance on the employee statements showing majori- ty support of the Union, dated September 6 and 7, which the Union offered to the Respondent on September 7 and 14, and which the Respondent de- clined to consider 4 We turn now to the question of the sufficiency of the August 22 employee letters m support of the Respondent's defense Employee statements offered to establish a reasonable doubt of the Union's ma- jority status "must demonstrate a clear intention by the employees not to be represented by the Union" Royal Midtown Chrysler Plymouth, 296 NLRB 1039 (1989) See also, e g, Parkview Furni- ture Mfg Co, 284 NLRB 947, 969 (1987), Greg- ory's, Inc. 242 NLRB 644, 648 (1979) Contrary to 4 Terrell Machine Co v NLRB, 427 F 2d 1088 (4th Cir 1970), cert denied 398 U S 929 (1970), relied on by the judge, is not to the contrary In Terrell, the employer was found to have had an insufficient objective basis to support a reasonable doubt on the date It refused to bargain Its subsequent refusal to consider proffered evidence of majority support after stating It would entertain a proffer of such evidence, was found to be an additional sign of bad faith Thus, Terrell is factually distinct from the Instant case, and does not stand for the general proposition that an employer is required to review evidence of the union's majority support subsequent to the date It withdraws recognition on the basis of a reasona- ble doubt of majority status AMBAC INTERNATIONAL 507 the judge, we find nothing ambiguous in the formal statement of these employees to their employer that each believes his "interests might best be served through individual, direct negotiation with AMBAC International, not through a third party, presently Local 112, IFPTE " Although there is an implicit suggestion of frustration with the Union's effectiveness in the negotiations up to that time, as the judge pointed out, the statement conveys more than this On its face, and taking into account that 5 of 10 unit employees signed letters with the iden- tical message, this statement is a clear invitation to the Respondent from one-half of the bargaining unit to engage in direct negotiations with the em- ployees, thus repudiating the Union's role as the exclusive bargaining representative 5 Consequently, the only reasonable, objective interpretation of this message in the circumstances presented to us is that 50 percent of the unit employees indicated that they did not want the Umon to represent them On the strength of this message, untainted by any em- ployer misconduct, 6 the Respondent's doubt that the Union retained the support of a majority of em- ployees was reasonable 7 Accordingly, we find that the Respondent's withdrawal of recognition on August 29 did not violate Section 8(a)(5) Pursuant to this finding, the Respondent's subsequent unilat- eral changes in various of the employees' condi- tions of employment did not violate the Act be- cause the Respondent no longer had an obligation to bargain over these matters with the Union 8 5 Although we acknowledge the tentative and hypothetical character of the language used, we do not agree with the judge that this tone makes the message sufficiently ambiguous that the Respondent could not reasonably assume that these employees did not want representation by the Union It is highly unlikely that the employees would memoralize mere idle conjectures about the advantages of direct bargaining in identi- cal letters delivered to their employer 6 As noted above, there is no evidence that Operations Manager Mis- talslu solicited the August 22 letters or contributed in any way to the draftmg of their content His assistance to employee Gifford in drafting an individual letter of resignation from union membership is a matter quite distinct from, and on this record unrelated to, the August 22 letters repudiating the Union as collective-bargaining representative We also note that there is no dispute in this case concerning the authenticity of the August 22 letters 7 Compare, e g, Bel-Mar Foods, 286 NLRB 786, 795-796 (1987) (em- ployee petition requesting an election because "we believe a majonty of employees in our unit no longer want to be represented by the union" conveyed the clear impression that the signers no longer wanted to be represented by the union, and contributed substantially to the law- fulness of the employer's withdrawal of recognition), Industrial Waste Service, 268 NLRB 1180, 1186 (1984) (employee petition stating that "[w]e don't want the Union What we want is what belongs to us Our raises long waited" found sufficient to establish the employer's reasonable doubt) 8 Concerning the Respondent's September 8 termination of dues-check- off, we note that this was neither alleged nor litigated as an 8(a)(5) viola- tion Further, It is generally not an unfair labor practice for an employer to discontinue dues-checkoff after the collective-bargaining agreement ex- pires See, e g, Tampa Sheet Metal Co, 288 NLRB 322 fn 15 (1988), Bethlehem Steel Co, 136 NLRB 15CO, 1501-1502 (1962), affd in relevant part sub nom Shipbuilders v NLRB, 320 F 2d 615 (3d Cu- 1963) Thus, quite apart from the lawfulness of the Respondent's withdrawal of recog- ORDER The complaint is dismissed ninon, its discontinuance of dues-checkoff after the contract had expired did not violate the Act Kathleen McCarthy, Esq , for the General Counsel William R McKibbon, Esq , of Greenville, South Caroli- na, for the Respondent DECISION DAVID L EVANS, Administrative Law Judge This matter under the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) was tried before me on June 28, 1989, in Northampton, Massachusetts The charges against AMBAC Internation- al Limited (Respondent) were filed by Local 112, Inter- national Federation of Professional and Technical Engi- neers, AFL-CIO, CLC (the Union) Upon the basis of the charges, the General Counsel issued a complaint' al- leging that Respondent, in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, withdrew recognition from the Union and thereafter committed several unilateral actions Re- spondent filed answers to the complaint which admit ju- risdiction but deny the commission of any unfair labor practices On the entire record, and my observation of the de- meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed by the parties, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I JURISDICTION Respondent is a corporation which has a facility at West Springfield, Massachusetts, where it is engaged in the manufacture of fuel injection components During the calendar year 1988, 2 Respondent, in the course and conduct of its business operations, sold and shipped from its West Springfield facility products, goods, and materi- als valued in excess of $50,000 directly to purchasers lo- cated at points outside Massachusetts, and during that period Respondent also purchased and received at its fa- cility products, goods, and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from suppliers located at points outside Massachusetts Respondent admits, and I find and conclude, that Re- spondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act Re- spondent further admits, and I further find and conclude, that the Union is a labor organization within the meamng of Section 2(2) of the Act The charge in Case 1-CA-25801 was filed on September 22, 1988, and the complaint and notice of hearing Issued on November 4, 1988 The charge in Case 1-CA-25943 was filed on November 15, 1988, and the order consolidating cases, amended consolidated complaint and notice of heanng issued on December 14, 1988 The charge in Case 1-CA- 26168 was filed on February 27, 1989, and the further order consolidating cases, second amended consolidated complaint and notice of heanng (the complaint) issued on April 11, 1989 2 All dates are in 1988 unless otherwise indicated 508 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD II ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A Facts The relevant facts are not in dispute Respondent pur- chased the facility involved in 1987 At that time, and at all times material herein, there were 10 technical depart- ment employees employed, all of whom were represent- ed by the Union under a collective-bargaining agree- ment 3 Respondent assumed the predecessor's contract and bargained with the Union after that contract expired in the summer of 1987 4 There were 15 bargaining ses- sions, a 16th session was scheduled for September 28 when the events of this case arose By letter dated August 29, Eric S Bnsbon and Gary M Mistalslu, Respondent's vice president of engineering and its operations manager, respectively, notified John F Dommgos, employee and vice president of the Union that We have been presented with objective evidence that Local 112 no longer represents a majority of the employees of AMBAC at 3601 Main Street, Spnngfield, MA 01107 5 Because of this fact, we hereby withdraw recognition of the Union, Local 112 IF P TE If you wish to verify the objective evidence used to support our legal position, we will be glad to oblige you Upon receipt of the August 29 letter, Dommgos went to Bnsbon's office Bnsbon presented Dommgos with five statements, each one of which was signed by a member of the (10-member) bargaining unit Each letter is dated August 22, each has no address or salutation, each states I believe my interests might best be served through individual, direct negotiation with AMBAC Inter- national, not through a third party, presently Local 112, IFPTE The five employees who, it is undisputed, signed the statements were George G Gifford, Donald S Johnson, John S Bnttam, Jean-Paul Aubm, and E H Suger- meyer Dommgos, who was called by the General Coun- sel, testified that he protested that the five employees had signed the statements on the basis of nusrepresenta- tions by some unnamed person or entity Bnsbon replied that Respondent believed the letters and that, because of them, Respondent would no longer recognize the Union By letter dated September 7, Dommgos notified Bns- bon I have been presented with objective evidence that a majority (greater than 50%) of the employees of Ambac have affirmed their desire to continue to be represented by Local 112 of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers If you wish to verify the objective evidence, I will be glad to oblige you 3 The (admitted) complete unit description is stated below 4 The exact date of the expiration of that contract is not in evidence 5 This was the wrong address, but no one made an issue of it The next negotiation meeting has been scheduled for September 28, 1988 at the Holiday Inn in Springfield We look forward to meeting Ambac representatives at that time By letter (also) dated September 7, Bnsbon responded to Dommgos We are in receipt of your letter dated 9/7/88 We recommend that if you persist in your claim to rep- resent the employees of AMBAC at 103 Myron Street, West Springfield, MA, that you file a peti- tion for election with the National Labor Relations Board On September 8, Respondent discontinued deducting union dues from the unit employees' paychecks as it had continued to do even after the last contract, with its union-shop 6 and checkoff clauses, had expired in 1987 By certified letter dated September 14, Dommgos re- sponded to Bnsbon Your decision to stop dues deductions effective September 8, 1988 was unjustified because the infor- mation that you provided me does not represent a majority of our membership As I stated in my letter of September 7, 1988, the Union has evidence of an overwhelming majority of our membership expressing their desire to have the Umon continue to represent them It is most unfortunate that you took action before investigating the facts on [sic] this matter I tried to give this evidence to Mr Gary Mis- talslu and he would not take it from me 7 I also be- lieve that action is equally unfortunate on such an important issue regarding labor relations I have enclosed the Union's evidence of the seven (7) members who have signed statements in support of Local 112 to continue to represent them in negotiations for wages, hours of work, and other conditions of employment As a result of this evi- dence, your acknowledgement to continue Local 112 recognition and to reinstate the dues deductions of our members is requested The next negotiation meeting has been scheduled for September 28, 1988, at the Holiday Inn in Springfield We look forward to meeting with Ambac representatives at that time Enclosed with Dommgos' September 14 letter were statements signed by Dommgos, Aubm, Sugermeyer, Plasse, Czamik, Ladd, and Danos Each is dated Septem- ber 6 or 7, and each states I, the undersigned employee of Ambac Internation- al, want Local 112 of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers to continue to represent me in the negotiations for wages, hours of work, and other conditions of employment 5 The transcript, p 28, L 9, is corrected to change "white work stated" to "right to work state" Dommgos testified that he made this attempt at some point after Re- spondent discontinued deducting union dues on September 8 AMBAC INTERNATIONAL 509 By letter dated September 16, Bnsbon responded to Do- mmgos We are in receipt of your letter dated 9/14/88 Again, I would suggest that if you persist in your claim to represent the employees of AMBAC at 103 Myron Street, West Springfield, MA, that you file a petition for election with the National Labor Rela- tions Board Respondent admits that, in addition to checkoff, after receipt of the August 22 statements it unilaterally elimi- nated Veterans Day and Presidents' Day as paid holi- days, and it admits that it made unilateral changes in em- ployee benefits regarding retirement, insurance plans, paid absence policy, personal holidays, overtime pay, and payroll period Employee George Gifford was called as a witness by the General Counsel Gifford testified that in mid-June he had a conversation with Mistalski about the progress of negotiations According to Gifford, he told Mistalski that he (Gifford) was disappointed because it appeared that no one was willing "to work to find solutions to what appeared to be deadlocks in negotiations" Mistalski replied that it would be inappropriate for him (Mistals1u) to comment At some point thereafter, further according to Gifford, "I did present Mistalslu with something to the extent that I preferred not to be in the Union" When shown what Gifford had drafted, Mistalski responded, "Well, that isn't sufficient "8 Gifford further testified that at a still later point Mis- talski "came back with something that he thought might be sufficient "9 When shown what Mistalslu had drafted, Gifford replied that "it was maybe too argumentative or fault finding, too accusatory, maybe" Gifford was not asked what he meant by this specific remark, however, Gifford was asked if, during his conversations with Mis- talski, he had indicated what he intended to accomplish by the drafts 10 According to Gifford, he told Mistalslu, "I thought things could be worked out or that there were solutions to problems if people were willing to try to find them" At this point Gifford was asked and testi- fied Q Did you ever tell Mr Mistalski that you wanted to decertify Local 112? A No I discussed missions more Thereafter, upon consultations with some other members of the bargaining unit, and apparently without further consultations or conversations with Mistalslu, Gifford drafted the language of the August 22 statements On direct examination Gifford testified that he either handed his signed statement to Mistalslu or he left it on Mistal- ski's desk On cross-examination, Gifford testified that he submitted more than just his signed copy to Mistalski, he testified that "just which ones [I turned in to Mistalslu] I Gifford was not asked if Mistalskt mdtcated to him what Mistalslu meant by "sufficient" 9 Again, Gifford was not asked if Mistalski indicated to him what Mi- stalski meant by "sufficient" 10 None of the drafts between Gifford and Mistalski were offered Into evidence, Gifford testified at least one of the drafts may have appeared only on a computer screen don't remember, but I am pretty sure I did not turn them all in" Mistalski did not testify There is no evidence of record of what, if anything, Gifford said to Mistalslu when he submitted his August 22 statement and the unknown number of other employ- ee statements, nor is there any evidence of how manage- ment received those copies which were not submitted to Mistalslu by Gifford, nor is there any evidence of what, if anything, was said when those statements were pre- sented to management Bnsbon was called to testify by Respondent He testi- fied that Mistalski presented him with all five of the August 22 statements 11 Bnsbon and Mistalski compared the signatures to the payroll and Bnsbon called his lawyer for advice B Conclusions Respondent acknowledges that upon expiration of a collective-bargaining agreement, there continues a pre- sumption of union majority status, however, Respondent cites several cases which hold that the presumption can be rebutted by petitions that indicate that a union no longer possesses such status In one case cited by Re- spondent, KDS-AM Radio, 262 NLRB 687 (1982), the ad- muustrative law judge, at 691, concisely states the find- ings necessary before such employee petitions may serve as a predicate for a lawful refusal to bargain Given the absence of any evidence tending to show Respondent's proclivity to violate the Act, I am un- persuaded, without more, that Respondent's reliance on a petition signed by a majority of the employees stating unambiguously that they no longer wanted [the union] to represent them was grounded on bad faith or seized upon as a basis to avoid its bargain- ing obligations under the Act Here, of course, while there is no demonstrated proclivi- ty to violate the Act, there also is no such unambiguous expression by employees, and Respondent virtually pounced upon the employee statements to unilaterally reduce some benefits and make changes in others Fur- thermore, it did this notwithstanding the fact that it had in its possession unambiguous expressions from the ma- jonty of unit employees that they wished to continue to be represented by the Union As most plainly stated in Sahara-Tahoe Corp v NLRB, 648 F 2d 553, 554 (9th Cir 1980) But, as we stated before, "[I]n refusing to bargain because of an alleged decline in union adherents, the employer is acting as vicarious champion of its employees, a role no one has asked it to assume" NLRB v Tahoe Nugget, 584 F 2d [293] at 301 Thus, before refusing to bargain with a union, an employ- er should have before it evidence which unequivo- cally indicates that the union no longer has the ma- jority support of the employees 11 As noted, there is no evidence of how Mistalski received those state- ments which were not presented by Gifford 510 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD At most, the employees' August 22 statements express some degree of dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of the Union during the on-going bargaining Literally, they posit only the hypothetical that more desirable results could be obtained by individual bargaining 12 Neither al- ternative is the unambiguous expression of a desire not to be represented by the incumbent collective-bargammg agent, as was required by KSD-AM Radio and all other cases cited by Respondent, and all other cases decided by the Board and the courts on the issue 13 Nor was Respondent free to disregard the Union's proffer of evidence of majority status contained in the September 14 letter from Dommgos As stated in Terrell Machine Co v NLRB, 427 F 2d 1088, 1090-1091 (4th Cir 1970), cert denied 398 U S 929 (1970), in circum- stances indistinguishable from these Coupled with the lack of a reasonable basis to give rise to doubt [of continued majority status] was af- firmative evidence of lack of good faith on the part of Terrell Although Terrell publicly stated that it was refusing to bargain only until the union's major- ity status was proved [in a Board election], it re- fused to consider the union's proffer to exhibit its record of members and authorizations as evidence of its legitimacy In summary, an employer may not unilaterally destroy an established collective-bargaining relationship on the basis of ambiguous expressions of employee dissatisfac- tion with the collective-bargaining agent and then refuse thereafter to consider unambiguous evidence of contin- ued majority support 14 It therefore follows that by Respondent's withdrawal of recognition of the Union, and by its unilateral actions thereafter, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, as I find and conclude THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer- tain unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative actions designed to effectuate the policies of the Act Having found that Respondent unlawfully withdrew recognition from the Union on or about August 29, 1988, I shall recommend that it be ordered to recognize the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of its employees in the appropriate unit and that Respondent, upon request, bargain collectively with the Union with respect to the rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, iS Nor is there any evidence that the statements were presented as any- thing else is As well as there being no evidence of what, if anything, was said when the employees' statements were presented to management, Gifford categoncally denied telling Mistalski (the only management official di- rectly Involved) that he wished to have the Union decertified 14 Respondent cites Linden Lumber EMUS= v NLRB, 419 U S 301 (1974), for the proposition that an employer faced with an initial bargain- ing demand may insist on a Board election, as long as its own unfair labor practices do not prevent the holding of such election While this is an accurate statement of the law regarding initial bargaining requests, the case sub Judice is one of an established bargaining relationship, not one yet to be established and other conditions of employment of its unit employ- ees and, if an understanding is reached, embody such un- derstanding in a signed agreement Having found that Respondent unlawfully discontin- ued or changed certain unit employee benefits, I shall recommend that Respondent be ordered to reinstate any terms of employment that existed at the time that it un- lawfully withdrew recognition, if requested to do so by the Union, and that it be ordered to make the employees whole by paying all benefits that would have been paid absent Respondent's unlawful changing or discontinuing said benefits Having found that Respondent unlawfully failed to check off union dues and remit those payments to the Union, I will recommend that Respondent be ordered to make whole the Union for any loss of dues suffered as a result of its failure to comply with the dues provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement after its expiration Interest is to be paid upon any amounts found to be owing by Respondent pursuant to this section in the manner prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987) Finally, I shall recommend that Respondent be re- quired to post an appropriate notice to its unit employ- ees CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 AMBAC International Limited is an employer en- gaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act 2 Local 112, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO, CLC is a labor or- ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act 3 The following employees of AMBAC International Limited constitute an appropriate unit for bargaining All technical engineering, architectural, experimen- tal, chemical, research employees, time study ana- lysts and other technical employees at Respondent's West Springfield, Massachusetts, location, but ex- cluding executives, production and maintenance em- ployees, clerical employees, blueprint and office em- ployees, and guards and supervisors as defined in the Act 4 At all times material herein and continuing to date, the Union has been the exclusive representative of all employees within the appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act 5 By the following acts and conduct, Respondent has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act (a) Withdrawing recognition from, and thereafter re- fusing to recognize and bargain in good faith with, the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa- tive of the employees in the above appropriate unit (b) Unilaterally eliminating or making changes in the terms and conditions of employment of the employees in the above appropnate unit including checkoff, holidays, group insurance carrier and benefits, rates, and condi- AMBAC INTERNATIONAL 511 tions of the group insurance plan, paid absence policy, employee personal holiday, overtime payments, payroll periods, and pension plan 6 The above unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act [Recommended Order omitted from publication ]