Tec-Cast, Inc.

372 NLRB No. 90 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex- ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can be included in the bound volumes. Tec-Cast, Inc. and United Food & Commercial Work- ers Union, Local 360. Case 22–CA–277711 June 21, 2023 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCFERRAN AND MEMBERS KAPLAN AND PROUTY On July 28, 2022, Administrative Law Judge Kenneth W. Chu issued the attached decision. The General Coun- sel filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegated 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,1 and conclusions, to amend the remedy,2 and to adopt the recommended Order as modified and set forth in full below.3 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board orders that the Re- spondent, Tec-Cast, Inc., Moonachie, New Jersey, its of- ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively and in good faith with United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 360 (the Union) as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of the following unit, by failing and refusing to bargain over the effects of its decision to close the Moonachie facility, lay off the bargaining unit 1 In the absence of exceptions, we adopt the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act when it failed to pro- vide the Union with notice and an opportunity to bargain over the effects of its decision to close its Moonachie, New Jersey facility, lay off the bargaining unit workers, and transfer the remaining bargaining unit work to another facility. 2 We have amended the judge’s remedy to remove the award of search-for-work and interim employment expenses. Consistent with re- cent precedent, the Board neither awards interim expenses nor deducts interim earnings as part of the limited backpay for effects-bargaining vi- olations provided under Transmarine Navigation Corp., 170 NLRB 389 (1968), as clarified by Melody Toyota, 325 NLRB 846 (1998). See Mid City Parking, Inc., 370 NLRB No. 105, slip op. at 3-4 (2021); Edward Hotel Detroit, LLC, 369 NLRB No. 86, slip op. at 2-3 (2020), enfd. 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 26659 (6th Cir. 2020). We have also amended the remedy to provide that the backpay shall be computed in accordance with Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971), rather than F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950). See Tramont Manufacturing, LLC, 365 NLRB No. 59, slip op. at 1 fn. 2 (2017), remanded on other grounds 890 F.3d 1114 (D.C. Cir. 2018). The General Counsel has excepted to the judge’s award of backpay to five individuals in spite of his finding that the Respondent may have laid off additional unit employees when closing the Moonachie facility. We workers, and transfer the remaining bargaining unit work to another facility: All full-time and regular part-time production and maintenance employees, including drivers, employed by the Respondent at its Moonachie facility, but ex- cluding all office clerical employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors, as defined in the Act. (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) On request, bargain in good faith with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit employees concerning the effects of the Respondent’s decision to close the Moonachie facility, lay off unit em- ployees, and transfer the remaining unit work to another facility, and reduce to writing and sign any agreement reached as a result of such bargaining. (b) Pay to the unit employees their normal wages for the period set forth in the remedy section of the judge’s deci- sion as amended in this decision, with interest. (c) Compensate affected employees for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum backpay awards, and file with the Regional Director for Region 22, within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a report allocating the backpay awards to the appropriate calendar years for each employee. (d) File with the Regional Director for Region 22, within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed find that the record supports the judge’s undisputed finding that the Re- spondent may have laid off additional unit employees and thus have amended the remedy to require the Respondent to pay backpay to all af- fected unit employees in the manner set forth in Transmarine Navigation Corp., supra, as clarified by Melody Toyota, supra. The identity of the affected employees and the amounts owed to them can be determined at the compliance stage of this proceeding. See, e.g., Buffalo Weaving & Belting, 340 NLRB 684, 685 fn. 3 (2003); ACS Acquisition Corp., 339 NLRB 736, 737 fn. 2 (2003). 3 We have modified the judge’s recommended Order to conform to the violations found, and in accordance with our decisions in Cascades Containerboard Packaging – Niagara, 370 NLRB No. 76 (2021), as modified in 371 NLRB No. 25 (2021), and Excel Container, Inc., 325 NLRB 17 (1997). We have substituted a new notice to conform to the Order as modified. The judge inadvertently described the complaint as alleging that the Respondent laid off Jose Fuentes, Elisabet Reynoso, Jacqueline Polanco, Walter Vidal, and Dionicio Vargas. In fact, the complaint alleges that the Respondent laid off Pedro Fuentes in addition to Jose Fuentes, Walter Vidal, and Dionicio Vargas, and does not allege that the Respondent laid off Elisabet Reynoso or Jacqueline Polanco. We correct this inadvertent error, which does not affect the disposition of this case. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2 by agreement or Board order or such additional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause shown, a copy of each backpay recipient’s corresponding W-2 form(s) reflecting the backpay awards. (e) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such additional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig- nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form, neces- sary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, duplicate and mail, at its own expense and after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative, copies of the at- tached notice marked “Appendix”4 to the Union and to all unit employees employed at the Respondent’s Moonachie, New Jersey facility at any time since March 20, 2021. In addition to the physical mailing of paper notices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, post- ing on an intranet or internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such means. (g) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director for Region 22 a sworn certification of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to com- ply. Dated, Washington, D.C. June 21, 2023 ______________________________________ Lauren McFerran, Chairman ______________________________________ Marvin E. Kaplan, Member ________________________________________ David M. Prouty, Member (SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE 4 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice reading “Mailed by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Mailed Pursuant to a Judgment of the NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vi- olated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice. FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO Form, join, or assist a union Choose representatives to bargain with us on your behalf Act together with other employees for your bene- fit and protection Choose not to engage in any of these protected ac- tivities. WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain collectively and in good faith with United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 360 (the Union), as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of the following unit, over the effects of our decision to close the Moonachie facility, lay off the bargaining unit workers, and transfer the remaining bargaining unit work to another facility: All full-time and regular part-time production and maintenance employees, including drivers, em- ployed by the Respondent at its Moonachie facility, but excluding all office clerical employees, profes- sional employees, guards and supervisors, as defined in the Act. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights listed above. WE WILL, on request, bargain in good faith with the Un- ion as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit employees concerning the effects of our deci- sion to close the Moonachie facility, lay off unit employ- ees, and transfer the remaining unit work to another facil- ity, and WE WILL reduce to writing and sign any agree- ment reached as a result of such bargaining. WE WILL pay to the unit employees their normal wages for the period set forth in the Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, with interest. WE WILL compensate affected employees for the ad- verse tax consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum backpay awards, and WE WILL file with the Regional Di- rector for Region 22, within 21 days from the date the amount of backpay is fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a report allocating the backpay awards to the appro- priate calendar years for each employee. United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.” TEC-CAST, INC. 3 WE WILL file with the Regional Director for Region 22, within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed by agreement or Board order or such additional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause shown, a copy of each backpay recipient’s corresponding W-2 form(s) reflecting the backpay award. TEC-CAST, INC. The Board’s decision can be found at https://www.nlrb.gov/case/22-CA-277711 or by using the QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Rela- tions Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273–1940. Nancy Slahetka, Esq. of Newark, New Jersey, for the General Counsel. Nicholas J. Botta, Esq., of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the Charging Party. Bart Heemskerk, Esq., of Springfield, Massachusetts, for the Respondent. DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE KENNETH W. CHU, Administrative Law Judge. A videocon- ference hearing was held on April 7, 2022, pursuant to a com- plaint issued by Region 22 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on September 30, 2021, in the matter of Tec- Cast, Inc. (Respondent) on a charge filed by the United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 360 (Union) on July 20, 2021. The complaint was subsequently amended by the General Counsel on March 17, 2022. The complaint states that about March 2021, the Respondent laid off its remaining bargaining unit employees, to wit, Jose Fuentes, Pedro Fuentes, Walter Vi- dal, and Dionicio Vargas (para. 11 of the complaint). The com- plaint alleges the Respondent engaged in the conduct described in para. 11 without prior notice to the Union and without afford- ing the Union an opportunity to bargain with respect to this con- duct and/or with the respect to the effects of the conduct (para. 12 of the complaint). The complaint further states that about June 2021, the Respondent closed its Moonachie facility and transferred the remaining bargaining work to a facility in 1 The General Counsel’s exhibits are identified as “GC Exh.” The exhibits for the Respondent are identified as “R. Exh.”. The post hearing brief of the General Counsel is identified as “GC Br.” The hearing tran- script is referenced as “Tr.” Springfield, Massachusetts (para. 13 of the complaint). The complaint alleges that the Respondent engaged in the conduct described in para. 13 without prior notice to the Union and af- fording the Union an opportunity to bargain with respect to the effects of this conduct (GC Exh. 1(f)).1 By the conduct described above, the complaint alleges that the Respondent violated Sec- tion 8(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act (Act). The Respondent filed a timely answer on October 28, 2021, denying the material allegations in the complaint (GC Exh. 1(h)). On March 24, 2022, the General Counsel moved to amend the complaint (GC Exh. 1(l)). The amended complaint deleted para. 12; paras 13 through 17 maintained their current numbering and the General Counsel amended para. 14 to read: Respondent engaged in the conduct above in paragraphs 11 and 13 without prior notice to the Union and without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain with Respondent with respect to the effects of this conduct. The Remedy section in the complaint was amended in the first sentence to read: As part of the remedy for the unfair labor practices alleged above in paragraphs 11 through 16, the General Counsel seeks an order requiring that Respondent make whole the Unit in the manner set forth in Transmarine Navigation Corp., 170 NLRB 389 (1968).2 On the entire record, including my assessment of the wit- nesses’ credibility3 and my observations of their demeanor at the hearing and corroborating the same with the adduced evidence of record, and after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel, Union, and the Respondent, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION AND UNION STATUS The Respondent Tec-Cast, Inc., a domestic corporation, with an office and place of business located in Moonachie, New Jer- sey, has been engaged in the production of wax patterns for alu- minum castings used in the aerospace and commercial industry. During the preceding 12-month representative period, the Re- spondent purchased and received goods and supplies at the Moonachie facility valued in excess of $50,000 in conducting its operations from points outside the State of New Jersey (GC Exh. 1(f), para. 4). In its answer, the Respondent admits to para. 4 in the complaint (GC Exh. 1(h)). As such, I find, that the Respond- ent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. The Union, United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 360, is and has been a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES During the relevant period of time, the Respondent was en- gaged in the foundry business, preparing wax molds used for pouring liquid aluminum to make castings for the aircraft and 2 The Respondent did not file an amended answer. 3 Witnesses testifying at the hearing included Robert Morehardt, Tim- othy Terifay and Sophie Curiel. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4 commercial industry (Tr. 12–14). Robert Morehardt (More- hardt) is the sole owner of Tec-Cast, Inc. He started the foundry business in 1963 with two facilities in Carlstadt and Moonachie, New Jersey. The Carlstadt plant was closed around September 2019, after it was sold to another company called Integra-Cast, in New Britain, Connecticut. Morehardt testified that a New Jer- sey competitor, Atlantic Casting, was engaged in the same type of business and was trying to take over Tec-Cast. Instead of sell- ing the Carlstadt plant to Atlantic, Morehardt decided to sell the Carlstadt equipment and other assets to Integra-Cast. Morehardt testified that his Moonachie plant continued to make the wax molds, but the process in pouring the aluminum liquid was now being done at Integra-Cast. He stated that some of his employees found jobs at Atlantic-Casting while others relocated to work at Integra-Cast in Connecticut (Tr. 14–18). At the time, Integra-Cast had approximately 80–90 employ- ees. Morehardt denied any ownership or holding an office with Integra-Cast. Morehardt testified that the Moonachie plant sub- sequently closed and relocated to Springfield, Massachusetts. Tec-Cast, Inc. was incorporated on September 17, 2019, in Mas- sachusetts, but Morehardt denied it was operational at the time of incorporation. Morehardt stated that the Springfield facility has four employees (Tr. 18–20). At all material times and through about the end of June 2021, the United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 360, has been the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the following appropriate unit for the purposes of collective-bargain- ing within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act, All full-time and regular part-time production and maintenance employees, including drivers, who work for Respondent at its Moonachie facility, but excluding all office clerical employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors, as defined in the Act. The Union entered into a collective-bargaining agreement with the Respondent from August 3, 2018 through August 2, 2019 (GC Exh. 2). The parties entered into a second agreement from August 3, 2019 through August 2, 2020. The new agree- ment was not signed by the parties, but it’s not disputed that the Respondent complied with all the terms and conditions of the new agreement (GC Exh. 3). Morehardt testified that he re- ceived a letter from Timothy Terifay to extend the contract. Terifay was the Union’s director of collective bargaining at that time. The letter for the contract extension was signed by Terifay. Morehardt denied that his signature was on the letter and denied knowing who had signed the extension letter on behalf of the Respondent. Nevertheless, Morehardt said that the Respondent continued to comply with the expired contract. Morehardt testi- fied that there was some bargaining over a successor contract af- ter the second agreement expired in August 2020. He recalled three telephone conversations but did not recall when and with whom from the Union (GC Exh. 4; Tr. 20–27; 53–57). Timothy Terifay (Terifay) testified that he sent a letter to Morehardt on July 29, 2020, requesting an extension of the con- tract, which was about to expire on August 2. The letter provided 4 The January 19, 2021 charge was subsequently withdrawn by the Union (GC Exh. 8; Tr. 97, 98). the right for either party to terminate the agreement on a 7-day notice to the other party. The letter of extension was signed by Terifay and the Respondent (GC Exh. 4). Terifay confirmed in testimony that there were three phone conversations with More- hardt on a new contract. Terifay recalled that he bargained with Morehardt over a new contract on July 28, 2020. He proposed a 3-year contract. Terifay recalled a second phone call to bargain on August 26 and the Union proposed a 1-year contract with wage increases. There were no counter proposals from the Re- spondent. The last bargaining session occurred by phone on Jan- uary 5, 2021 (Tr. 91–96). A. Morehardt’s Statements to Close the Moonachie Facility During two of the three bargaining sessions between More- hardt and Terifay, Morehardt never informed Terifay that he was planning to close the Moonachie plant. Terifay testified that Morehardt never mentioned the plant closing when they spoked on July 28 and August 26, 2020 (Tr. 92–94). Morehardt testified that it was not his intention to close the plant during the summer and fall 2020 (Tr. 29). Morehardt did not recall telling Terifay that the Moonachie facility was closing at their last bargaining phone session on Jan- uary 5, 2021, because it was not his intention to close the facility at that time (Tr. 27, 28). However, Morehardt did inform Terifay that he was providing the 7-day notice to terminate the contract. Morehardt followed this comment with a letter on the same day, informing the Union of Respondent’s intent to terminate the con- tract on January 15, 2021 (GC Exh. 5). Terifay testified the parties were finally able to arrange a phone call to bargain on January 5, 2021, after several delays since their August 26, 2020 bargaining session. He confirmed that Morehardt announced the cancellation of the (extension) contract and that he followed that with a letter of termination to the Union. Although Morehardt failed to recall if he told Terifay about closing the facility at the January 5 meeting, Terifay re- called Morehardt telling him on January 5 that he would be clos- ing the Moonachie facility. Terifay testified that there was noth- ing more specific provided by Morehardt over the closing and that he did not inquire further about the closure. Terifay stated that he was focused with the refusal to bargain that resulted in the Union to file a charge against the Respondent. The Union’s charge was filed on January 19, 2021, alleging the Respondent had unilaterally withdrawn recognition of the Union and refused to bargain (Tr. 94–96, 102; GC Exh. 6).4 Morehardt insisted that he was still trying to continue the Moonachie operation even after the wax department left in Jan- uary 2021. He testified (Tr. 69), Well, we had our injection department still working. So we were still trying to stay alive with the injection department. And then when the last few people in the injection area were hired by At- lantic, that was when I couldn't – I couldn't keep it open just for a finishing department.5 B. The Meeting at the Moonachie Facility Morehardt testified that he held a meeting with the remaining 5 The injection department closed in March 2021 (Tr. 69). TEC-CAST, INC. 5 workers at the Moonachie facility to announce his decision to close the plant. He does not recall when the meeting was held but asserted that it was sometime between January and June 2021. Morehardt recalled that there were only about 12 employ- ees left at the Moonachie facility. He explained that the wax department had closed in January 2021, after Atlantic Casting obtained the equipment needed to prepare the wax molds. More- hardt said that some of the wax department workers found jobs with Atlantic Casting and others went to work for Integra-Cast. He stated that there were about 40 employees at the beginning of January and most of the workers left when the wax equipment arrived at Atlantic-Casting. Morehardt said that his wax equip- ment and assets were moved from Moonachie to Integra-Cast in New Britain, Connecticut in March and only about 12 workers were left in the finishing department by that time (Tr. 57–60). Morehardt testified that Sophie Curiel, a union representative, was at the meeting when he announced the closing of the Moonachie facility. Although Morehardt failed to recall when the meeting was held, he insisted that the Union was on notice at the meeting of his intent to close Moonachie. He asserted that he had several meetings with his workers throughout 2020 about the move and in closing the facility. He testified that Curiel was present at several of these meetings when he discussed the clo- sure of the plant (Tr. 35–39). Morehardt testified that he gave the remaining 12 workers the option to work at Integra-Cast and he was willing to pay their moving expenses to New Britain. He stated that the Riggers would be removing the rest of the facility’s equipment and assets once the Riggers’ move of the wax equipment was completed. He stated to the workers that the facility will close once the Rig- gers gave him a date for moving the rest of the equipment (Tr 30–35, 62–64). Morehardt testified that during this meeting, Curiel did not say anything or ask any questions about the facility closing or the moving of the equipment to Connecticut (Tr. 62– 64). Sophie Curiel testified that she has been a union representative for 3 years with Local 360. Curiel is the designated Local 360 union representative for the unit employees at the Moonachie fa- cility (R. Exh. 1). She is responsible for visiting facilities, en- suring the collective-bargaining agreements are being followed, and for filing grievances. Curiel has previously visited the Moonachie facility and knows Morehardt as the owner of the Moonachie facility (Tr. 110–112). Curiel testified that she recalled attending one meeting in early 2021 when Morehardt announced the closing of the Moonachie plant. Curiel stated that there were about 25 workers in the fin- ishing department when Morehardt announced the closing the plant. Curiel testified that there was “…a little bit of a chaos…” after the announcement was made with many questions being asked by the workers. She does not recall any of the questions that were asked by the workers or the responses by Morehardt. She stated Morehardt did not indicate when the plant will close. Curiel denied that Morehardt had mentioned the movers, layoffs or if workers could find jobs at the Connecticut or Massachusetts 6 The Respondent objected as hearsay to the portion of Curiel’s testi- mony that she was told by Fuentes that all union workers were laid off and only nonunion jobs remained (Tr. 116). The testimony was allowed facilities. Curiel testified that she has attended previous meetings in Moonachie, but this was the only meeting where she heard about the plant closing. Curiel testified that she continued to visit the Moonachie plant after the announcement to close was made. Curiel asserted that she never received any communication from Morehardt about when the plant was closing or when the workers would be laid off. Curiel testified that she was told by Jose Fuentes, the shop steward, in late March that the Respondent was laying off the workers. Curiel testified that Morehardt told Fuentes that there would be no more union workers and only nonunion jobs would remain at the facility (Tr. 112–116). Based upon the testimony provided by Morehardt and the pay- roll records for the period of March 4, 2021 to April 8, 2021, the record shows that Walter Vidal was laid off but found a job working for Atlantic-Casting (after working a few weeks at the Springfield facility); Elisabeth Reynoso was laid off but found work at Atlantic-Casting; Jacqueline Polanco was laid off; Jose Fuentes and Dionicio Vegas were laid off after there was no more work when the finishing department was relocated to Springfield, Massachusetts (GC Exh. 7; Tr. 39–44).6 Curiel reported the layoffs and the closing of the facility to her supervisor, Terri Dunnet, Director of Business Representatives. Curiel did not recall if Dunnet said anything in response (Tr. 125, 126). Curiel said that a union grievance was filed on May 10, 2021, alleging that on about April 29, the Respondent laid off all union workers and hired nonunion employees (GC Exh. 9). Curiel believed that there were only 6–10 workers left working in the wax department at the Moonachie facility when the griev- ance was filed (Tr. 121–123). Curiel testified that 12 workers were laid off. Curiel testified there was no response from the Respondent on the grievance and that the grievance is pending arbitration (Tr. 117–120, 124–127). Terifay testified that he found out in late May or early June that the plant had closed. Terifay testified that there was no no- tice of the plant closing after his January 5, 2021 telephone call with Morehardt, although at that time, Terifay had said More- hardt mentioned that the plant might close. Terifay stated that the Union filed the currant charge with the NLRB on May 26, 2021, for failing and refusing to recognize the union as the col- lective-bargaining representative; failing and refusing to bargain in good faith with the union; and failing and refusing to bargain in good faith with the union by making unilateral changes in the terms and conditions of employment (GC Exh. 1(b)). The charge was subsequently amended on July 20 to allege that the employer failed to bargain over the effects of the shutdown and had en- gaged in an unlawful layoff (GC Exh. 1(d)). During the pendency of this charge, Terifay sent an email to Morehardt on August 10, 2021, to bargain over the effects of the plant closing. The first response of record from Morehardt was made in an email to Terifay on October 28, 2021. In his October 28 email, Morehardt stated that he “…was again responding to (Terifay’s) email to bargain and wanted to set up a date to bar- gain.” Morehardt testified that he was encouraged by a Board in and weighed for its probative value. I find that Curiel’s testimony was in fact credible when it was corroborated by Morehardt and the payroll records. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 6 agent to reach out to the Union to bargain over the effects of the decision. Morehardt testified that he called Terifay at least three times but received no responses (Tr. 44, 45). However, Terifay testified that he never received any prior phone calls, voice mes- sages or an earlier email from Morehardt to bargain except for the October 28 email (Tr. 97–99; 104–107; GC Exh. 10). The parties never met to bargain over the effects of the decision to close the Moonachie facility. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS It is not disputed that the sole issue in the amended complaint is whether the Respondent is obligated to notify and bargain with the Union over the effects of laying off unit employees and clos- ing the Moonachie facility. The counsel for the General Counsel contends that the Respondent violated section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act for failing and refusing to bargain with the Union with respect to the effects of the Respondent’s conduct in laying off bargaining unit employees and closing the Moonachie facility and transferring the remaining bargaining work to Springfield, Massachusetts. The General Counsel argues that the Respondent failed to give adequate notice of the plant closure and conse- quently, the Union was foreclosed from the opportunity to bar- gain over the effects of the closure (Tr. 6, 7; GC Br. at 9). The Respondent argues that Morehardt had in fact notified the Union of his decision to close the Moonachie plant so that the Union has the opportunity to bargain over the effects of the closure. The Respondent blames the bargaining unit employees for leav- ing the Moonachie plant to work for a competitor and thereby jeopardizing the jobs of the remaining workers at the Moonachie plant. The Respondent contends that the remaining handful of employees were laid off when the plant eventually closed (Tr. 7, 8). A. Credibility Findings A credibility determination may rely on a variety of factors, including the context of the witness’ testimony, the witness’ de- meanor, the weight of the respective evidence, established or ad- mitted facts, inherent probabilities and reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the record as a whole. Credibility findings need not be all-or-nothing propositions—indeed, nothing is more common in all kinds of judicial decisions than to believe some, but not all, of a witness’ testimony. Farm Fresh Co., Target One, LLC, 361 NLRB 848, 860 (2014). B. Applicable Legal Standard It is well established that an employer has an obligation to give a union notice and an opportunity to bargain about the effects on union employees of a managerial decision even if the employer has no obligation to bargain about the decision itself.7 Tramont Manufacturing, LLC, 369 NLRB No. 136, slip op. at 5 (2020); Allison Corp., 330 NLRB 1363, 1365 (2000) (citing First Na- tional Maintenance Corp. v. NLRB, 452 U.S. 666, 681–682 (1981)); 11 West 51 Realty LLC, 371 NLRB No. 83 (2022). The Board requires pre-implementation notice because there may be 7 As alleged in the amended complaint, the General Counsel argues that the Respondent violated the Act for failing and refusing to notify and bargain with the Union over the effects of laying off unit employees and alternatives that the employer and union can explore to avoid or reduce the impact of the decision without calling into question the decision itself. Good Samaritan Hospital, 335 NLRB 901, 903–904 (2001); Allison Corp., 330 NLRB at 1366. In such sit- uations, “the employer’s duty [is] to give pre-implementation no- tice to the union to allow time for effects bargaining.” Willamette Tug & Barge Co., 300 NLRB 282, 282 (1990). The duty to bargain requires the employer to provide the union with a meaningful opportunity to engage in effects bargaining. As noted in First National, above, “Bargaining over the effects of a decision must be conducted in a meaningful manner and at a meaningful time.” Id. at 681–682. In determining whether the requisite meaningful opportunity has been provided, a relevant consideration is “whether the union is afforded an opportunity to bargain ‘at a time when it still represented employees upon whom the Company relied for service.’” Komatsu America Corp., 342 NLRB 649, 649 (2004) (quoting Metropolitan Tele- tronics Corp., 279 NLRB 957, 959 (1986), enfd. mem. 819 F.2d 1130 (2d Cir. 1987)). Once the employer has furnished a mean- ingful opportunity to bargain, it is incumbent on the union to pur- sue its bargaining rights. Berklee College of Music, 362 NLRB 1517, 1518 (2015). C. Analysis In early 2021, the entire wax department was decimated once Atlantic-Casting began its operation and most of Respondent’s employees went to work for Atlantic. Morehardt testified that he could not recall when his employees left, but believed it started in January (Tr. 57). Morehardt testified that the Moonachie facility had approximately 40 bargaining unit em- ployees still working in January 2021 (Tr. 56). At the January 5, 2021 bargaining session for a new collective-bargaining contract between the Respondent and the Union, Morehardt did not recall telling Terifay that he intended to close the Moonachie facility (Tr. 27, 28). However, upon examination by the General Coun- sel, Terifay testified that he recalled that Morehardt specifically mentioned to him that the Moonachie plant would be closing (Tr. 95), Q. Did Mr. Morehardt say anything else during the meeting on January 5th? A. He said he might be closing. Q. Did he say anything more specific than that? A. No. Upon my examination of Terifay, he testified that he did not follow up on the comment that Morehardt might close the facility because he was more concerned over the announcement by Morehardt that he was cancelling the extension of the contract (Tr. 100). Morehardt testified that he attempted to continue the Moonachie operation after the wax department left in January 2021. He testified that the injection and finishing departments were still viable operations at the Moonachie plant. He lamented that when Atlantic hired his injection department employees in early March 2021, he couldn’t continue operating the Moonachie closing the Moonachie facility. The General Counsel did not argue that the Respondent was obligated to notify and bargain with the Union over the managerial decision to lay off workers and close the facility. TEC-CAST, INC. 7 facility with just the finishing department (Tr. 69), Well, we had our injection department still working. So we were still trying to stay alive with the injection department. And then when the last few people in the injection area were hired by Atlantic, that was when I couldn't – I couldn't keep it open just for a finishing department. Morehardt then held a meeting with the remaining workers at the Moonachie facility to announce the closure of the plant. He does not recall exactly when the meeting was held, but believed it was in the beginning of March 2021 (Tr. 67). He believed there were about 12 employees left at the Moonachie facility, mainly working in the finishing department (Tr. 57–60). He as- serted that he had several meetings with his workers throughout 2020 about the move and closing the facility. He testified that Curiel was present at several of these meetings when he dis- cussed the closure of the plant and the move to Connecticut (Tr. 35–39). Curiel was at the meeting when Morehardt announced the closing of the Moonachie facility. Curiel testified that she re- called attending one meeting in early 2021 when Morehardt an- nounced the closing of the Moonachie plant. She also failed to recall when the meeting was held (Tr. 112).8 In my opinion, and more likely than not, the meeting occurred in late February or early March. Morehardt thought the meeting was held in the beginning of March. Curiel testified she found out about the layoffs of the bargaining unit employees from shop steward, Jose Fuentes, in late March. Further, the Respondent proffered an invoice from the MIMS Riggers dated March 24, 2021, that indicated that the invoice was paid by the Respondent on that date and the job entailed the MIMS Riggers to move the wax and finishing equipment from the Moonachie facility (R. Exh. 2). Morehardt testified that he stated to the workers at the meeting that the facility will close once the Riggers gave him a date for moving the rest of the equipment (Tr 65, 66). He stated that the Riggers would be removing the remaining equipment and assets by early June once the Riggers completed the move of the wax equipment. He stated to the workers that the facility will close once the Riggers gave him a date for moving the rest of the equipment. The Respondent did not proffer an invoice or any evidence as to when the remainder of the equipment and assets were moved after March 24. Morehardt testified that during this meeting, Curiel did not say anything or ask any questions about the facility closing or the moving of the equipment to Connecticut (Tr. 62–64). Curiel tes- tified that she has attended previous meetings in Moonachie but this was the only meeting where she heard about the plant clos- ing. Upon my examination, Curiel testified that (Tr. 119, 120), Q. After you -- after you and the workers were informed in March at the March meeting that Mr. Morehardt indicated that the plant was closing, did you talk to him in private after the meeting? A. No. Q. Did you talk to him at any time after that meeting about the plant closing? 8 The hearing transcript mistakenly transcribed the year of the March meeting as 2020 (Tr. 112). Consistent with the chronological chain of events, the meeting was obviously held in 2021. A. No. Q. With him or with anybody else? A. No. Curiel informed her supervisor, Terri Dunnet, that Morehardt was planning to close the facility and to lay off workers. Curiel asserted that she never received any communication from More- hardt about when the plant was to be closed or when the workers would be laid off (Tr. 125, 126). Terifay testified that he found out in late June or early July that the plant had closed from either Curiel or Dunnet (Tr. 104). Terifay stated that the Union filed the current charge with the NLRB on May 26, 2021. During the pendency of this charge, Terifay sent an email to Morehardt on August 10, 2021, to bar- gain over the effects of the plant closing after it was recom- mended to do so at a NLRB meeting on the charge (Tr. 99). On cross-examination, Terifay testified to the following (Tr. 105), Q. And then after -- when you learned of it, did you ask Ms. Curiel or Ms. Dumphrey (ph.), or anyone else what had – what steps had been taken to attempt to bargaining on the effects of the closure by the Union? A. I believe there was a Labor Board charge filed by the Local that I wasn't involved with. Q. So my question was did you inquire as to what steps an- yone at the Local had taken to bargain about the effects of the closure once you learned in June or May that the closure had happened? A. No, I did not. Q. When you learned about it in June -- May or June, were you also instructed by anyone at the Local to commence ef- fects bargaining? A. Just to be clear, I said late June or July I found out about it. Q. Okay, all right. A. I believe you said May. I didn't say May. Q. Okay. A. No, I wasn't instructed by -- there was a Labor Board charge that had been filed already and the Labor Board was handling it at that time. Q. Did you do anything until your August 10, 2021, email to Mr. Morehardt with respect to effects bargaining? A. No. D. The Respondent Violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act The Respondent was obligated to give the Union an oppor- tunity to bargain over the effects of the decision to close the fa- cility and lay off the workers. Here, I find that the notice of the plant closing was never sufficiently conveyed to the Union in advance of the changes. KIRO, Inc., 317 NLRB 1325, 1327 (1995) (It is well established that even when an employer is not required to engage in decisional bargaining with a union, it may nevertheless have an obligation to provide the union with notice and an opportunity to bargain about the effects of that decision on unit employees). The General Counsel argues that the notice to the Union was DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 8 insufficient for it to seek effects bargaining. I agree. I find that the Union was never on notice by the Respondent of the decision to lay off the unit employees and to close the Moonachie facility. The employer’s duty to give pre-implementation notice was not given sufficiently in advance to allow for effects bargaining to be conducted in a meaningful manner and at a meaningful time. Willamette Tug & Barge Co., above; Komatsu America Corp., above. What constitutes sufficient notice of a change depends on all the circumstances of a case. Emhart Industries, 297 NLRB 215 (1987). The Respondent is obligated to provide the Union with pre-implementation notice of its decision to close the Moonachie facility in order to satisfy its effects bargaining obli- gation. Frontier Communications Corp., 370 NLRB No. 131 (2021). Terifay testified he was informed by Morehardt of the possi- bility of closing the Moonachie facility on January 5, 2021. Terifay did not respond to Morehardt’s comment and he was more focused on the cancellation of the contract extension than the announcement to close the Moonachie facility (Tr. 95, 100, 102). Morehardt testified that it was not his intention to close the plant when he mentioned to Terifay he was closing the facil- ity in January. As such, based upon Morehardt’s testimony to continue the Moonachie operations through the spring, the Janu- ary announcement that the plant might close did not trigger the obligation of the Union to bargain over the effects of the closing. It is also clear that the staff meeting in late February or early March 2021 did not obligate the Union to request effects bar- gaining because it was not objectively clear at the meeting that Morehardt had made the decision to close the plant and lay off the workers. I credit Morehardt’s testimony that once the riggers came to move the equipment, the Moonachie facility would be closed. As evidenced by the mover’s invoice (R. Exh. 2), the moving of the Moonachie equipment occurred on March 24. However, I also credit Morehardt’s testimony that the plant would not close until the remainder of the equipment and assets were moved. As noted, Morehardt announced to the workers in the early March meeting that the facility will close once the Rig- gers gave him a date for moving the rest of the equipment (Tr 30–35, 62–64). As noticed above, the Respondent did not prof- fer any evidence as to when the rest of the assets would be moved but it would have been after the March 24 move. During this time, the Moonachie facility was still in operation. Conse- quently, the Respondent was far from deciding to close the facil- ity in March. Curiel testified that she had attended several meetings in spring 2021. Morehardt testified that Curiel had been in several staff meetings where he had announced the plant closing. Curiel recalled only one meeting when Morehardt announced the layoffs and plant closing. I credit Curiel’s testimony and accept the validity of her statement. Curiel was present at the March meeting when Morehardt allegedly made the announcement to close Moonachie and lay off the workers. Curiel denied that Morehardt mentioned layoffs, the movers, or the offer to relocate the workers to New England (Tr. 114, 115). Curiel testified that Morehardt stated at the meeting that (Tr. 113), A. He said that he regretted to tell everyone that he would be closing the facility and that he would be moving to Connecticut. That anybody that was willing to go with him would be, you know, he would be more than happy to take them with him. Clearly, Curiel knew that the plant was closing but consistent with her prior testimony, Curiel did not know that workers were being laid off or when they would be laid off. Curiel also did not know when the plant’s equipment would finally be moved or even a potential date for the closure. Curiel testified that the workers were upset when Morehardt announced closing the fa- cility. Curiel testified there was “chaos” among the workers, with much shouting back and forth and was unable to privately speak to Morehardt (Tr. 124, 125). Curiel was informed by Jose Fuentes, the shop steward, in late March that the Respondent was laying off workers. Curiel testified that Morehardt told Fuentes that there would be no more union workers and only nonunion jobs would remain at the facility (Tr. 112–116). As noticed above, in Komatsu America Corp, at 649, the opportunity to bar- gain was at a time when the Union “…still represented employ- ees upon whom the Company relied for service.” However, by late March or early June, it was too late to engage in effects bar- gaining since the remaining union workers were laid off and the Respondent only had nonunion jobs. The Union filed a griev- ance on May 10, 2021, after Curiel was informed by Jose Fuentes towards the end of March that the Respondent was laying off unit employees (Tr. 115–117; 127, GC Exh. 10). Terifay testified that he was not notified about the closure un- til early June (or July). The Union promptly filed an NLRB charge on May 26 over the unilateral change in terms and condi- tions of employment (GC Exh. 1(b)) and subsequently amended the charge on July 20, 2021 to include the employer’s failure to bargain over the effects of the Moonachie shutdown and the layoff (GC Exh. 1(d). I find that the Union was, indeed, required to request bargain- ing here and that, in the absence of such a request, the Respond- ent cannot be held to have violated its duty to engage in mean- ingful effects bargaining. However, I find that the Union never had the opportunity to request effects bargaining because More- hardt never informed the Union as to his decision when the plant will close. “Effects bargaining obligation arises after the deci- sion has been made but before it is implemented.” See, 800 River Road Operating Co., LLC d/b/a Care One at New Milford, 369 NLRB No. 109 (2020). Here, the record shows that the Re- spondent provided no such notice and instead, implemented its decision to layoff the unit workers and close the Moonachie fa- cility. I agree with the General Counsel that any effects bargaining request would have been futile because Morehardt had no inten- tion to bargain with the Union over a new contract since the time of the abrupt cancellation of the contract at the January 5 bar- gaining session and he had no intention to bargain over the ef- fects of the plant’s closure since that time (GC Br. at 10, 11). None of Morehardt’s actions and comments gave any indica- tion as to when the Moonachie facility would close. Morehardt made vague comments in meetings throughout 2020 about clos- ing the Moonachie facility but buttressed his comments about the closure with the possibility that Moonachie might stay open with reduced operations. At the January 5 bargaining session, TEC-CAST, INC. 9 Morehardt denied that he might close the facility. At the early March meeting and in the presence of Curiel, Morehardt hedged his announcement of any imminent plant closure because the clo- sure would be dependent upon when the Riggers would finally move the rest of the equipment and assets. Curiel’s testimony is credited when she testified that Morehardt never announced any layoffs of the workers or that jobs would be available if they were to transfer to Integra-Cast in Connecticut. Terifay testified that after an NLRB investigative meeting on the charge, the Union sent a request for effects bargaining on August 10, 2021, to Morehardt (GC Exh. 10). Morehardt did not reply to Terifay’s request for effects bargaining until October 28. There is no evi- dence of record to substantiate Morehardt’s testimony that he had replied earlier than October 28. Regardless, by the time of the effects bargaining request made on August 10, the Union lost its opportunity to meaningfully engage in effects bargaining in- asmuch as the facility had already closed and all the unit employ- ees were laid off. Additionally, the remaining bargaining unit work was transferred to the Respondent’s Springfield facility and the only nonunion jobs were left in Moonachie by late March or early June 2021. Accordingly, I find that the counsel for the General Counsel has satisfied her burden that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) when the Respondent failed to provide sufficient notice to the Union for effects bargaining when the Moonachie facility closed, the remaining bargaining unit workers were laid off, and the bargaining unit work was transferred to Respondent’s facility in Springfield, Massachusetts.9 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. At all material times, the Respondent Tec-Cast, Inc. is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. At all material times and through about the end of June 2021, the United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 360 (Union), has been the exclusive collective-bargaining repre- sentative of the following appropriate unit for the purposes of collective-bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act, All full-time and regular part-time production and mainte- nance employees, including drivers, who work for Respond- ent at its Moonachie facility, but excluding all office clerical employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors, as defined in the Act. 3. The Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act when it failed to provide the Union with notice and an oppor- tunity to bargain over the effects of its decision to close the Moonachie facility, laid off the bargain unit workers, and trans- ferred the remaining bargaining unit work to another facility. 4. The unfair labor practices described above affect com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 9 The counsel for the General Counsel asserted at the hearing that the Respondent was not fully in compliance with the government subpoena (Tr. 74–86; GC Exh. 12). I instructed the Respondent to turn over all documents pursuant to the subpoena by April 14 and gave the General Counsel until April 21 to review the documents produced and/or file any appropriate motion for sanctions for noncompliance with the subpoena, REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un- fair labor practices, I shall order it to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, to remedy the Respondent's unlawful fail- ure to bargain with the Union about the effects of its decision to close its Moonachie, New Jersey facility, I shall order the Re- spondent to bargain with the Union, on request, about the effects of its decision. As a result of the Respondent's unlawful conduct, however, the unit employees have been denied an opportunity to bargain through their collective-bargaining representative. Meaningful bargaining cannot be assured until some measure of economic strength is restored to the Union. A bargaining order alone, therefore, cannot serve as an adequate remedy for the un- fair labor practices committed. Accordingly, in order to ensure that meaningful bargaining occurs and to effectuate the policies of the Act, to accompany my bargaining order with a limited backpay requirement designed both to make whole the employ- ees for losses suffered as a result of the violation and to recreate in some practicable manner a situation in which the parties’ bar- gaining position is not entirely devoid of economic conse- quences for the Respondent. I shall do so by ordering the Respondent to pay backpay to the unit employees in a manner similar to that required in Transma- rine Navigation Corp., 170 NLRB 389 (1968), as clarified by Melody Toyota, 325 NLRB 846 (1998) and Mid City Parking, Inc., 370 NLRB No. 105 (2021). Thus, the Respondent shall pay the following unit employees: Jose Fuentes, Elisabeth Reynoso, Jacqueline Polanco, Walter Vidal, and Dionicio Vargas,10 back- pay at the rate of their normal wages when last in the Respond- ent’s employ from 5 days after the date of this Decision and Or- der until occurrence of the earliest of the following conditions: (1) the Respondent bargains to agreement with the Union on those subjects pertaining to the effects of the closure on the unit employees; (2) the parties reach a bona fide impasse in bargain- ing; (3) the Union fails to request bargaining within 5 business days after receipt of this Decision and Order or to commence negotiations within 5 business days after receipt of the Respond- ent's notice of its desire to bargain with the Union; or (4) the Union subsequently fails to bargain in good faith. In no event shall the sum paid to these employees exceed the amount they would have earned as wages from the date on which the Re- spondent ceased operations to the time they secured equivalent employment elsewhere, or the date on which the Respondent shall have offered to bargain in good faith, whichever occurs sooner. However, in no event shall this sum be less than the em- ployees would have earned for a 2-week period at the rate of their normal wages when last in the Respondent's employ. Backpay shall be based on earnings that the named unit em- ployees normally would have received during the applicable pe- riod and shall be computed in accordance with F.W. Woolworth as necessary. No motion was filed by the General Counsel, and as such, the record is closed with no additional exhibits admitted by the General Counsel (Tr. 128, 129). 10 There actually may have been more than five unit employees who were laid off. I credit Curiel’s testimony that there were 12 unit employ- ees laid off when the grievance was filed (Tr. 117–127). DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 10 Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as pre- scribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010). In accordance with Don Chavas, LLC, d/b/a Tortillas Don Chavas, 361 NLRB 101 (2014), my recommended order requires Respondent to compensate the named unit employees for the ad- verse tax consequences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum backpay award and to file with the Regional Director for Region 22 within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a report allocating the backpay award to the appropriate calendar years. AdvoServ for New Jersey, 363 NLRB 1324 (2016). I would further recommend that the Re- spondent provide the Regional Director for Region 22, the af- fected employees’ W-2 forms to address the possibility that the SSA may not accept Respondent’s backpay reports without the accompanying W-2 forms to ensure that the allocation of back- pay awards are accurately made to the appropriate calendar quar- ters. Cascades Containerboard Packaging-Niagara, 370 NLRB No. 76 (2021). In addition to the remedies ordered, I shall recommend that the Respondent compensate named unit employees, above, for any search-for-work and interim employment expenses regard- less of whether those expenses exceed their interim earnings. King Soopers, Inc., 364 NLRB 1153 (2016). Search for work and interim employment expenses shall be calculated separately from taxable net backpay, with interest at the rate prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010). ORDER On these findings of facts and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommended11 The Respondent, Tec-Cast, Inc., its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Laying off, or otherwise discriminating against employees because they engaged in protected concerted activities. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, 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) Make whole employees Jose Fuentes, Elisabeth Reynoso, Jacqueline Polanco, Walter Vidal, and Dionicio Vargas, for any loss of earnings and other benefits, including reimburse- ment for all search-for-work and interim-work expenses, re- gardless of whether they received interim earnings in excess of these expenses, suffered as a result of the unlawful layoff, as set forth in the remedy section of this decision. 11 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions and recommended Or- der 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 purposes. 12 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice reading “Mailed by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall read “Mailed Pursuant to a Judgment of the (b) Compensate named unit employees for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving a lump-sum backpay award, and to file with the Regional Director for Region 22 within 21 days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a report allocating the backpay award to the appropriate calendar years. (c) Pay the named unit employees their normal wages for the period set forth in the Remedy section of this decision, with interest. (d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. (e) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such addi- tional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment rec- ords, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of back- pay. Absent exceptions 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 due under the terms of this Order. (f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, duplicate and mail, at its own expense and after being signed by the Re- spondent’s authorized representative, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix”12 to the Union and to all unit em- ployees who were employed by the Respondent at the Moonachie, New Jersey facility, any time since March 1, 2021. In addition to the physical mailing of paper notices, no- tices shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, post- ing on an intranet or internet site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such means.13 (g) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director for Region 22, a sworn certification of a re- sponsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply. Dated: Washington, D.C. July 28, 2022 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 Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice. United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.” 13 Because the Moonachie facility had closed, no modification as set forth in Danbury Ambulance Service, Inc., 369 NLRB No. 68 (2020) (holding that if a facility is closed due to the Coronavirus-19 pandemic, notification obligation is delayed until l14 days after the facility reopens) is necessary. TEC-CAST, INC. 11 FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO Form, join, or assist a union Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be- half Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi- ties. WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain collectively and in good faith with United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Lo- cal 360 (the Union) as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre- sentative of the following unit, by failing and refusing to bargain over the effects of our decision to close: All full-time and regular part-time production and maintenance employees, including drivers, who work for Respondent at its Moonachie facility, but excluding all office clerical employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors, as defined in the Act. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re- strain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights listed above. WE WILL make whole our employees Jose Fuentes, Elisabeth Reynoso, Jacqueline Polanco, Walter Vidal, and Dionicio Var- gas, for any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a re- sult of our unlawful conduct, plus interest and minus tax with- holdings required by Federal and State laws. WE WILL pay our unit employees further limited backpay, plus interest, in connection with our failure to bargain over the effects of our decision to close the Moonachie facility. WE WILL compensate affected unit employees for the adverse tax consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum backpay awards, and WE WILL file with the Regional Director for Region 22, within 21 days of the date of the Board’s Order, a report allocating the backpay awards to the appropriate calendar years for each em- ployee. WE WILL file with the Regional Director for Region 22 copies of your W-2 forms reflecting the backpay awards. TEC-CAST The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at www.nlrb.gov/22-CA-277711 or by using the QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from the Ex- ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273- 1940.