Beaird Industries

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 21, 2009

354 N.L.R.B. 361 (N.L.R.B. 2009)

354 NLRB No. 50
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
boundvolumes 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.
Beaird Industries, Inc.; and Beaird Company, Ltd.
and International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Work-
ers of America, Local Union 2297
Beaird Company, Ltd. and International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, Local Union
2297. Cases 15–CA–17315, 15–CA–17355, 15–
CA–17366, 15–CA–17424, 15–CA–17425, 15–
CA–17484, 5–CA–17708, 15–CA–17804, 15–CA–
17948, 15–CA–17982, 15–CA–17983, 15–CA–
18002, and 15–CA–18012
July 21, 2009
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBER SCHAUMBER
The General Counsel seeks a default judgment in this
case on the ground that the Respondents, Beaird Indus-
tries, Inc. (Respondent Industries), and Beaird Company,
Ltd. (Respondent Company), have failed to file answers
to the amended second consolidated complaint. Upon
charges filed on various dates by International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America, Local Union 2297 (Union),1
the General Counsel issued a series of complaints and
amended complaints against the Respondents.2 The last

1 The original charge in Case 15–CA–17315 was filed by the Union
on March 22, 2004, and amended charges were filed on April 12 and
May 17, 2004, and November 16, 2006. The original charge in Case
15–CA–17355 was filed on May 3, 2004, and amended charges were
filed on June 2, 2004, and November 16, 2006. The charge filed in
Case 15–CA–17424 was filed on July 7, 2004. The original charge in
Case 15–CA–17425 was filed on July 7, 2004, and an amended charge
was filed on November 16, 2006. The original charge in Case 15–CA–
17366 was filed on May 17, 2004, and amended charges were filed on
May 19 and August 21, 2004, and November 14, 2006. The original
charge in Case 15–CA–17484 was filed on August 30, 2004, and
amended charges were filed on September 10, October 27, and Novem-
ber 24, 2004. The charge in Case 15–CA–17708 was filed on May 10,
2005. The original charge in Case 15–CA–17804 was filed on August
19, 2005, and the amended charge was filed on August 25, 2005. The
original charge in Case 15–CA–17948 was filed on March 3, 2005, and
amended charges were filed on April 6 and November 14, 2006, and
May 29, 2007. The charge in Case 15–CA–17982 was filed on April 6,
2006. The charge in Case 15–CA–17983 was filed on April 6, 2006.
The charge in Case 15–CA–18002 was filed on May 1, 2006. The
original charge in Case 15–CA–18012 was filed on May 10, 2006, and
the amended charges were filed on July 10 and August 28, 2006.
2 The original complaint against Respondent Company issued on
January 26, 2005. The first consolidated complaint against Respondent
Industries and Respondent Company issued on November 29, 2006.
The second consolidated complaint against the Respondents issued on
of these, the amended second consolidated complaint,
repeats allegations in earlier complaints that Respondent
Industries violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, that Re-
spondent Company violated Section 8(a)(1), (3), and (5)
of the Act, and that Respondent Company is a Golden
State successor3 to Respondent Industries with knowl-
edge of Respondent Industries’ unfair labor practices and
with joint and several liability for them.
Respondent Company filed timely answers to the
original complaint, the first consolidated complaint, and
the second consolidated complaint. The answers admit-
ted certain complaint allegations, but denied all allega-
tions of unfair labor practices, denied that Respondent
Company was a Golden State successor with knowledge
of, and shared liability for, Respondent Industries’ unfair
labor practices, and denied, due to lack of sufficient in-
formation, allegations that Respondent Industries had
violated the Act. The answers also asserted certain af-
firmative defenses. Respondent Company did not file an
answer to the amended second consolidated complaint.
Respondent Industries did not file an answer to any
complaint version.
On February 4, 2009, the General Counsel filed with
the Board a Motion for Default Judgment against the
Respondents. Thereafter, on February 12, 2009, the
Board issued an Order transferring the proceeding to the
Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the motion
should not be granted. Neither Respondent filed a re-
sponse. The allegations in the motion are therefore un-
disputed.
Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment4
Section 102.20 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations
provides that the allegations in the complaint shall be
deemed admitted if an answer is not filed within 14 days
from service of the complaint, unless good cause is

June 29, 2007. The amended second consolidated complaint issued on
December 10, 2008.
3 See Golden State Bottling Co. v. NLRB, 414 U.S. 168 (1973).
4. Effective midnight December 28, 2007, Members Liebman,
Schaumber, Kirsanow, and Walsh delegated to Members Liebman,
Schaumber, and Kirsanow, as a three-member group, all of the Board’s
powers in anticipation of the expiration of the terms of Members Kir-
sanow and Walsh on December 31, 2007. Pursuant to this delegation,
Chairman Liebman and Member Schaumber constitute a quorum of the
three-member group. As a quorum, they have the authority to issue
decisions and orders in unfair labor practice and representation cases.
See Sec. 3(b) of the Act. See Snell Island SNF LLC v. NLRB, 568 F.3d
410, (2d Cir. 2009); New Process Steel v. NLRB, 564 F.3d 840 (7th Cir.
2009), petition for cert. filed 77 U.S.L.W. 3670 (U.S. May 22, 2009)
(No. 08-1457); Northeastern Land Services v. NLRB, 560 F.3d 36 (1st
Cir. 2009), rehearing denied No. 08-1878 (May 20, 2009). But see
Laurel Baye Healthcare of Lake Lanier, Inc. v. NLRB, 564 F.3d 469
(D.C. Cir. 2009), petitions for rehearing denied Nos. 08-1162, 08-1214
(July 1, 2009)
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
shown. In addition, the second amended consolidated
complaint affirmatively states that each Respondent must
file an answer and that the answers must be received by
the Regional Office on or before December 24, 2008.
Further, the undisputed allegations in the General Coun-
sel’s motion disclose that the Region, by letter dated De-
cember 30, 2008, notified the Respondents that, unless
an answer was received by January 6, 2009, a motion for
default judgment would be filed.
In the absence of good cause being shown for the fail-
ure of Respondent Industries to file a timely answer, we
deem the allegations in the complaint as to that Respon-
dent to be admitted as true, and we grant the General
Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment in relevant part.
Respondent Company did, however, file timely an-
swers to the original complaint, the consolidated com-
plaint, and the second consolidated complaint. “The
Board will not grant default judgment on an allegation
responded to in a timely-filed answer to a complaint even
though the respondent later fails to timely answer an
amended complaint repeating that allegation, provided
that the repeated allegation is ‘substantively unchanged’
from the original.” RFS Ecusta, Inc., 342 NLRB 920,
920–921 (2004). Here, the amended second consolidated
complaint simply repeats prior complaint allegations that
Respondent Company committed several unfair labor
practices and that it is a Golden State successor jointly
liable to remedy unfair labor practices committed by
predecessor Respondent Industries. Respondent Com-
pany adequately denied these allegations in its answer to
the second consolidated complaint and was not obligated
to do so again in response to the amended second con-
solidated complaint in order to preserve its right to a
hearing on the allegations. Accordingly, we shall deny
the General Counsel’s Motion for Default Judgment
against Respondent Company and remand the portion of
this proceeding pertaining to that Respondent to the Re-
gion for further appropriate action.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times until about April 22, 2004, Re-
spondent Industries was a Delaware corporation with an
office and place of business in Shreveport, Louisiana,
where it engaged in the business of manufacturing indus-
trial equipment. In conducting this business, Respondent
Industries annually sold and shipped from its Shreveport
facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to
points outside the State of Louisiana, and it annually pur-
chased and received at its Shreveport facility goods val-
ued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the
State of Louisiana.
We find that Respondent Industries was at all material
times an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. We also
find that International Union, United Automobile, Aero-
space and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
Local Union 2297, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
On March 30, 1990, the Union was certified as the ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of employees
of Respondent Industries in the following unit, which is
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees, including,
but not limited to material expediters, shipping, and re-
ceiving, chief shipper and receiver, inspectors, tool-
room attendants, welders, welder trainees, welder tech-
nicians, maintenance mechanics, plant clericals, senior
plant clerks, working leadmen, bay leadmen, radiogra-
phers and trainees, stress oven operators, electricians,
fitters, tool grinders, grinders, machinists, helpers, torch
burners, machine center operators, layout material
handymen, painters, product finishers, and sandblast-
ers; excluding office clerical, office clean up employ-
ees, professional employees, draftsmen, nurses, indus-
trial engineers, material control clerks (purchasing),
traffic/building clerk, traffic analyst, traffic manager,
watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
From about March 30, 1990, to about April 22, 2004,
the Union had been the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative, within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the
Act, of the unit employees employed by Respondent In-
dustries. The Union’s representative status was recog-
nized and embodied in successive collective-bargaining
agreements, the most recent of which was effective by its
terms from December 5, 2002, through November 20,
2006.
Respondent Industries, unilaterally and contrary to es-
tablished seniority and past practice, laid off unit em-
ployees on November 10, 17, 23, and 30, 2003, in early
December and on December 19, 2003, on January 9, 18,
2004, and other dates that month, and it failed to recall
unit employees in mid-January 2004, when employees of
less seniority had been recalled. About May 28, 2004,
the Union was first put on notice that since about De-
cember 2003, Respondent Industries had unilaterally
ceased making payments for prescription safety glasses
BAIRD INDUSTRIES 3
for unit employees. About early January 2004, Respon-
dent Industries assigned nonbargaining unit personnel to
perform the bargaining unit work of toolroom attendants
and of the lead unit employee in the building and
grounds department at Respondent Industries’ facility.
The above-described conduct by Respondent Indus-
tries related to wages, hours, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment of the unit employees and therefore
involved mandatory subjects for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining. By engaging in this conduct without
prior notice to the Union and without affording the Un-
ion an opportunity to bargain with respect to this conduct
and its effects, Respondent Industries violated Section
8(a)(5) of the Act.
About early February 2004, Respondent Industries re-
tained contractor H & H X-Ray Service to x-ray “Si-
lencer” line shells, bargaining unit work, at Respondent
Industries’ facility. About March 18, 2004, Respondent
Industries ceased operations, shut down its Shreveport
facility, and terminated its work force. About March 18
or 19, 2004, Respondent Industries retained temporary
service Express Personnel Services to provide employees
to perform bargaining unit work at Respondent Indus-
tries’ facility.
The above-described conduct by Respondent Indus-
tries related to wages, hours, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment of the unit employees and therefore
involved mandatory subjects for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining. By engaging in this conduct without
prior notice to the Union and without affording the Un-
ion an opportunity to bargain with respect to the effects
of this conduct, Respondent Industries violated Section
8(a)(5) of the Act.5
On March 11, 2004, the Union, by letter, requested
that Respondent Industries furnish the Union with infor-
mation relating to the possible sale of Respondent Indus-
tries or its assets, the effects thereof, and a possible pur-
chaser. Respondent Industries delayed in furnishing this
information to the Union. In the same letter, the Union
requested information relating to the splitting, moving,
replacing, selling, or outsourcing of the “Silencer” line,
and it requested documents relating to the sale of Re-
spondent Industries and its assets and the terms thereof.
Since that date, Respondent Industries failed and refused
to provide this requested information.

5 The General Counsel does not allege that the failure to bargain
about the decisions to subcontract unit x-ray work, to shutdown the
facility, to terminate the work force, and to retain temporary service
Express Personnel Services to provide employees to perform unit work
was unlawful.
On March 22, 2004, the Union, by letter, requested
that Respondent Industries furnish the Union with the
following itemized information:
B. Provide a current list of the employees affected by
the decision to close/sell. For each employee, provide
the following:
. . . .
3. Shift;
. . . .
C. Provide a copy of the current timetable, and specify
the variables, regarding your plan to close.
. . . .
E. Provide information as to what will happen to Em-
ployer’s property, assets, and the equipment located
therein as a consequence of the sale/closing. Will it be
sold? To whom? Have there been any contracts, etc.?
. . . .
J. What are the Company’s plans for the plant, machin-
ery, and equipment?
K. What will happen to the work formerly performed at
this plant?
L. What is the schedule of layoffs and production cut. .
. . . .
Q. Copies of any correspondence to employees, super-
visors, shareholders, owners, or any others, on the sub-
ject of the shutdown.
Since about March 22, 2004, Respondent Industries
has failed and refused to furnish the information re-
quested in items B3, K, and Q above. In addition, Re-
spondent Industries delayed in furnishing to the Union
the information requested in items C, E, J, and L above.
The above-described information in the Union’s
March 11 and 22 letters was necessary for, and relevant
to, the Union’s performance of its duties as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of bargaining unit
employees. By failing and refusing to provide part of the
requested information, and by delaying in providing the
rest of it, Respondent Industries violated Section 8(a)(5)
of the Act.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
By the acts and conduct described above, Respondent
Industries has failed and refused to bargain collectively
and in good faith with the exclusive collective bargaining
representative of its employees, and has thereby engaged
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent Beaird Industries, Inc.
has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall
order it to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Specifically, to remedy Respondent Industries’ unlawful
failure and refusal to bargain with the Union about the
effects of its decisions to close its Shreveport, Louisiana
facility, to terminate its employees, and to retain tempo-
rary service Express Personnel Services to provide em-
ployees to perform bargaining unit work, we shall order
Respondent Industries to bargain with the Union, on re-
quest, about the effects of those decisions. As a result of
Respondent Industries’ unlawful conduct, however, the
unit employees have been denied an opportunity to bar-
gain through their collective-bargaining representative at
a time when the Respondent might still have been in
need of their services and a measure of balanced bargain-
ing power existed. Meaningful bargaining cannot be
assured until some measure of economic strength is re-
stored to the Union. A bargaining order alone, therefore,
cannot serve as an adequate remedy for the unfair labor
practices committed.
Accordingly, we deem it necessary, in order to insure
that meaningful bargaining occurs and to effectuate the
policies of the Act, to accompany our bargaining order
with a limited backpay requirement designed both to
make whole the employees for losses suffered as a result
of the violations and to recreate in some practicable
manner a situation in which the parties’ bargaining posi-
tion is not entirely devoid of economic consequences for
Respondent Industries. We shall do so by ordering Re-
spondent Industries to pay backpay to the terminated
employees in a manner similar to that required in Trans-
marine Navigation Corp., 170 NLRB 389 (1968), as
clarified by Melody Toyota, 325 NLRB 846 (1998).6
Thus, Respondent Industries shall pay its terminated
employees backpay at the rate of their normal wages
when last in the Respondent’s employ from 5 days after
the date of this Decision and Order until the occurrence
of the earliest of the following conditions: (1) the date
Respondent Industries bargains to agreement with the
Union on those subjects pertaining to the effects of the
closing of its facility on its employees; (2) a bona fide
impasse in bargaining; (3) the Union’s failure to request
bargaining within 5 business days after receipt of this
Decision and Order, or to commence negotiations within

6 See also Live Oak Skilled Care & Manor, 300 NLRB 1040 (1990).
5 business days after receipt of the notice from Respon-
dent Industries of its desire to bargain with the Union; or
(4) the Union’s subsequent failure to bargain in good
faith.
In no event shall the sum paid to these employees ex-
ceed the amount they would have earned as wages from
the date on which Respondent Industries closed its facil-
ity to the time they secured equivalent employment else-
where, or the date on which Respondent Industries shall
have offered to bargain in good faith, whichever occurs
sooner. However, in no event shall this sum be less than
what the employees would have earned for a 2-week
period at the rate of their normal wages when last in Re-
spondent Industries’ employ. Backpay shall be based on
earnings which the unit employees would normally have
received during the applicable period, less any net in-
terim earnings, and shall be computed in accordance with
F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with inter-
est as prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283
NLRB 1173 (1987).7
In addition, having found that Respondent Industries
unlawfully laid off and recalled employees contrary to
established seniority and past practice, ceased paying
prescription safety glasses for unit employees, and as-
signed nonbargaining unit personnel to perform the bar-
gaining unit work of unit employees, we shall require
that any unit employees who suffered losses as a result of
these actions be made whole in the manner prescribed in
Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), enfd.
444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971), with interest as prescribed
in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173
(1987).
We shall also order Respondent Industries to cease and
desist from failing and refusing to furnish to the Union,
within a reasonable time, the information that we have
found is necessary for, and relevant to, the Union’s per-
formance of its duties on behalf of the unit employees,
and to provide the requested information that it has here-
tofore failed to provide.
Finally, in view of the fact that Respondent Industries
closed its Shreveport facility and terminated the unit em-
ployees working there, we shall order Respondent Indus-
tries to mail a copy of the attached notice to the Union
and to the last known addresses of its former employees
who were employed by the Respondent since November

7 The General Counsel seeks compound interest computed on a quar-
terly basis for any backpay or other monetary awards. Having duly
considered the matter, we are not prepared at this time to deviate from
our current practice of assessing simple interest. See, e.g., Glen Rock
Ham, 352 NLRB 516 fn. 1 (2008), citing Rogers Corp., 344 NLRB 504
(2005).
BAIRD INDUSTRIES 5
10, 2003, in order to inform them of the outcome of this
proceeding.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Beaird Industries, Inc., Shreveport, Louisi-
ana, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to bargain in good faith and
collectively with the International Union, United Auto-
mobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America, Local Union 2297, as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of the employees in the
following appropriate bargaining unit:
All production and maintenance employees, including,
but not limited to material expediters, shipping, and re-
ceiving, chief shipper and receiver, inspectors, tool-
room attendants, welders, welder trainees, welder tech-
nicians, maintenance mechanics, plant clericals, senior
plant clerks, working leadmen, bay leadmen, radiogra-
phers and trainees, stress oven operators, electricians,
fitters, tool grinders, grinders, machinists, helpers, torch
burners, machine center operators, layout material
handymen, painters, product finishers, and sandblast-
ers; excluding office clerical, office clean up employ-
ees, professional employees, draftsmen, nurses, indus-
trial engineers, material control clerks (purchasing),
traffic/building clerk, traffic analyst, traffic manager,
watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act, as amended.
(b) Laying off or recalling employees contrary to es-
tablished seniority and past practice, ceasing to make
payments for prescription safety glasses for unit employ-
ees, and assigning nonbargaining unit personnel to per-
form the bargaining unit work of toolroom attendants and
of the lead unit employee in the building and grounds
department, without prior notice to the Union and with-
out affording the Union an opportunity to bargain with
respect to this conduct and the effects of this conduct on
unit employees.
(c) Retaining an outside contractor to perform bargain-
ing unit x-ray work, ceasing operations and closing the
Shreveport, Louisiana facility, terminating the unit em-
ployees working there, and thereafter retaining a tempo-
rary personnel service to provide employees to perform
bargaining unit work, without prior notice to the Union
and without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain
over the effects of this conduct on unit employees.
(d) Delaying or refusing to provide information re-
quested by the Union which is necessary for and relevant
to the Union’s performance of its duties as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of unit employees.
(e) 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) Make whole unit employees, with interest, for any
loss of earnings and other benefits they may have suf-
fered as a result of its unlawful failure to bargain prior to
laying off unit employees on various dates from Novem-
ber 2003 through January 2004, failing to recall unit em-
ployees when employees of less seniority were recalled
in mid-January 2004, ceasing payments for prescription
safety glasses for unit employees in December 2003, and
assigning non-bargaining unit personnel to perform the
bargaining unit work of toolroom attendants and the lead
unit employee in the building and grounds department, as
set forth in the remedy section of this decision.
(b) On request, bargain with the Union over the ef-
fects on unit employees of retaining H & H X-Ray Ser-
vices to perform the bargaining unit work of x-raying
“Silencer” line shells, ceasing operations and closing the
Shreveport, Louisiana facility, terminating unit employ-
ees working there, and retaining temporary service Ex-
press Personnel Services to provide employees to per-
form bargaining unit work, and reduce to writing and
sign any agreement reached as a result of such bargain-
ing.
(c) Pay to the affected unit employees their normal
wages for the period set forth in the remedy section of
this decision.
(d) Provide the Union with the following requested in-
formation which is necessary for and relevant to the Un-
ion’s performance of its duties on behalf of the unit em-
ployees: (i) information relating to the splitting, moving,
replacing, selling or outsourcing of the “Silencer” line,
and documents relating to the sale of Respondent Indus-
tries and its assets and the terms thereof, as requested in
the Union’s March 11, 2004, letter; (ii) information items
B3, K, and Q, as requested in the Union’s March 22,
2004 letter.
(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, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel re-
cords and reports, and all other records including an elec-
tronic copy of such records if stored in electronic form,
necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due under
the terms of this Order.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, dupli-
cate and mail, at its own expense after being signed by
the Respondent’s authorized representative, copies of the
attached notice marked “Appendix,”8 to the Union and to
all unit employees who were employed by the Respon-
dent Industries at any time since November 10, 2003.
(g) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps the Respondent has taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the allegations in the
amended second consolidated complaint relating to Re-
spondent Beaird Company, Ltd. be severed and re-
manded to the Regional Director for further proceedings
consistent with this Decision and Order.
Dated, Washington, D.C. July 21, 2009
Wilma B. Liebman, Chairman
Peter C. Schaumber, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
MAILED 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 mail 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
activities.
WE WILL NOT FAIL or refuse to bargain in good faith
with the International Union, United Automobile, Aero-

8 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
space and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
Local Union 2297 (Union) as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of our employees in the follow-
ing appropriate bargaining unit:
All production and maintenance employees, including,
but not limited to material expediters, shipping, and re-
ceiving, chief shipper and receiver, inspectors, tool-
room attendants, welders, welder trainees, welder tech-
nicians, maintenance mechanics, plant clericals, senior
plant clerks, working leadmen, bay leadmen, radiogra-
phers and trainees, stress oven operators, electricians,
fitters, tool grinders, grinders, machinists, helpers, torch
burners, machine center operators, layout material
handymen, painters, product finishers, and sandblast-
ers; excluding office clerical, office clean up employ-
ees, professional employees, draftsmen, nurses, indus-
trial engineers, material control clerks (purchasing),
traffic/building clerk, traffic analyst, traffic manager,
watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act, as amended.
WE WILL NOT lay off or recall employees contrary to
established seniority and past practice, cease making
payments for prescription safety glasses for unit employ-
ees, or assign non-bargaining unit personnel to perform
the bargaining unit work of toolroom attendants and of
the lead unit employee in the building and grounds de-
partment, without prior notice to the Union and without
affording the Union an opportunity to bargain with re-
spect to this conduct and the effects of this conduct on
unit employees.
WE WILL NOT retain an outside contractor to perform
bargaining unit x-ray work, cease operations, and close
our Shreveport, Louisiana facility, terminate the unit
employees working there, and thereafter retain a tempo-
rary personnel service to provide employees to perform
bargaining unit work, without prior notice to the Union
and without affording the Union an opportunity to bar-
gain over the effects of this conduct on unit employees.
WE WILL NOT delay or refuse to provide information
requested by the Union which is necessary for, and rele-
vant to the Union’s performance of its duties as the ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of unit em-
ployees.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make whole unit employees, with interest,
for any loss of earnings and other benefits they may have
suffered as a result of our unlawful failure to bargain
prior to laying off unit employees on various dates from
November 2003 through January 2004, failing to recall
BAIRD INDUSTRIES 7
unit employees when employees of less seniority were
recalled in mid-January 2004, ceasing payments for pre-
scription safety glasses for unit employees in December
2003, and assigning non-bargaining unit personnel to
perform the bargaining unit work of toolroom attendants
and of the lead unit employee in the building and
grounds department.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union over the
effects on unit employees of our retaining H & H X-Ray
Services to perform the bargaining unit work of x-raying
“Silencer” line shells, ceasing operations and closing the
Shreveport, Louisiana facility, terminating unit employ-
ees working there, and thereafter retaining temporary
service Express Personnel Services to provide employees
to perform bargaining unit work, and WE WILL reduce to
writing and sign any agreement reached as a result of
such bargaining.
WE WILL pay to unit employees affected by our unilat-
eral conduct described in the preceding paragraph their
normal wages for the period set forth in the remedy sec-
tion of the Board’s Decision and Order.
WE WILL provide the Union with the relevant bargain-
ing information that it requested in letters of March 11
and 22, 2004, which we have failed and refused to pro-
vide.
BEAIRD INDUSTRIES, INC.