Blitz Maintenance, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 21, 1990

297 N.L.R.B. 1005 (N.L.R.B. 1990)

BLITZ MAINTENANCE 1005
Blitz Maintenance, Inc. and Local 24, Hotel Em-
ployees and Restaurant Employees Union,
AFL-CIO. Case 7-CA-28724
March 21, 1990
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT AND DEVANEY
On August 23, 1989, Administrative Law Judge
Wallace H Nations issued the attached decision
The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and brief and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, 1 and
conclusions and to adopt his recommended Order 2
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Blitz Main-
tenance, Inc , Dearborn, Michigan, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Order
'The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find-
ings The Board's established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect Standard Dry
Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd 188 F 2d 362 (3d Or 1951)
We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing
the findings
The judge found that the Respondent violated Sec 8(a)(5) of the Act,
Inter aim, by making unilateral changes in employees terms of employ-
ment without notification and bargaining with the Union In so doing, he
found that the Respondent was obligated to recognize the Union based
on two theones first, that the Respondent had voluntarily recognized the
Union, and, second, that the Respondent was a successor employer based
on its continuation of U S Maintenance's business and the fact that a ma-
Jonty of its unit employees were former U S Maintenance employees
We adopt the judge's successorship analysis, and find It unnecessary to
rely on the voluntary recognition theory
The judge noted that the Respondent changed the practice of its pred-
ecessor, U S Maintenance, of deducting union dues from employee pay-
checks An employer does not violate the Act by failing to deduct union
dues in the absence of a current collective-bargaining agreement requir-
ing It to do so See, e g, Peerless Roofing Co, 247 NLRB 500, 505 (1980)
Accordingly, our adoption of the judge's finding that the Respondent
violated Sec 8(0(5) in making unilateral changes is based on the other
unilateral changes found by the judge and reflected in the record and not
on the Respondent's failure to deduct union dues
2 In adopting the judge's Order that the Respondent rescind, on the
Union's request, the unilateral changes It unlawfully implemented in the
employees' terms and conditions of employment, we note that the Re-
spondent is not required to rescind any changes It made in the employees'
schedules, as the evidence indicates that the Respondent told employees
at the time It lured them that schedules might be changed See Spruce Up
Corp, 209 NLRB 194 (1974) The Order also does not require the Re-
spondent to take any remedial action regarding the failure to check off
dues Peerless Roofing, supra
Dwight R Kzrksey, Esq , for the General Counsel
Daniel C McCarthy, Esq , of Greenwood, Indiana, for
the Respondent
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WALLACE H NATIONS, Administrative 'Law Judge
Local 24, Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees
Union, AFL-CIO (Union) filed a charge on December
14, 1988, 1 against Blitz Maintenance, Inc (Blitz or Re-
spondent) and thereafter, on January 9, 1989, filed an
amended charge Based upon the original charge and the
amendment, the Regional Director for Region 7 issued a
complaint against Respondent alleging that Respondent
has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National
Labor Relations Act (Act) Respondent filed its answer
admitting the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint,
but denying the remaining allegations Hearing was held
in this matter on April 25 and 26, 1989, in Detroit,
Michigan Bnefs were received from General Counsel
and Respondent on or about June 22, 1989
The primary issues raised by the pleadings are
I Did Respondent as a successor employer violate
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act when it changed certain exist-
ing terms and conditions of employment of its employees
on or after June 15 without prior notification to and bar-
gaining with the Union?
2 Did Respondent violate Section 8(a)(5) of the Act
by refusing to respond in a timely fashion to all of the
Union's requests for information pursuant to its functions
as the bargaining representative of Respondent's employ-
ees?
3 Did Respondent bargain in bad faith with the
Charging Party in violation of Section 8(a)(5) by refusing
to provide relevant information requested by the Union,
by unilaterally changing terms and conditions of employ-
ment of its employees without prior notification to and
bargaining with the Union and by failing and refusing to
timely meet and bargain with the Union over terms and
conditions of employment for its employees?
Based upon the entire record, including my observa-
tion of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after consider-
ation of the briefs, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JURISDICTION
The Respondent is a corporation with an office and
place of business in Dearborn, Michigan, where at all
times material to this proceeding it has been engaged in
providing housekeeping services to Fairlane Manor, Inc,
in Dearborn, Michigan Respondent admits the jurisdic-
tional allegations of the complaint and I find that the Re-
spondent is now, and has been at all times material to
this proceeding, an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act
'All dates are in 1988 unless otherwise noted
297 NLRB No 169
1006 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
11 LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
It is admitted and I find that the Union is, and has
been at all times material, a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
III ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Background Facts
Blitz was established by its owner and president,
Detlef Milner, after he left his father's employment in
Chicago, Illinois, in the spring of 1988 Hiliner had pro-
vided some cleaning services to Fairlane Manor, a pri-
vate club, in 1987 while working for his father's compa-
ny While performing work for Fairlane Manor, Inc , he
was invited to bid on the upcoming contract for the
housework at the club and submitted a bid in February
The contract was then held by U S Maintenance Corpo-
ration (U S Maintenance), which at the expiration of its
contract was employing 22 persons to provide house-
keeping services for Fairlane Manor These 22 employees
were represented by the Union as their exclusive bar-
gaining representative 2 Since 1984, the Union had repre-
sented a number of employees of Fairlane Manor At
some point in the relationship, Fairlane Manor decided
to subcontract the housekeeping work and the subcon-
tractor entered into a separate agreement with the
Union U S Maintenance succeeded to this contract
Shortly before Blitz began serving Fairlane Manor, the
Union reached agreement with Fairlane Manor and with
U S Maintenance for new collective-bargaining agree-
ments 3
However, in early April, Blitz was awarded the Fair-
lane Manor contract Shortly after entering into this con-
tract, Milner told Fairlane Manor that he wanted to hire
a new crew of employees when he began providing serv-
ices Fairlane Manor indicated to him that it wanted to
retain some of the existing staff, keeping the better em-
ployees and letting the others go Milner agreed to do
this He also testified that he had been told by his attor-
ney and the attorney for Fairlane Manor that he would
not have to deal with the Union However, his actions
from the time he was awarded the contract to about 2
weeks after he started operations do not seem to support
this assertion
The Union learned in April from U S Maintenance
that there would be a new subcontractor beginning June
15, when U S Maintenance's contract expired It was not
until early June, however, that the Union learned that
the new subcontractor would be Blitz Upon gaining this
knowledge, Union Representative Donald Murdock
called on Milner Murdock told Milner that the Union
had Just reached agreement with U S Maintenance and
briefly explained the terms of the agreement Murdock
further testified that Milner responded by agreeing to
2 The unit represented by the Union constituted a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec 9(b) of
the Act, and Included an housekeeping employees of U S Maintenance
Corporation, but excluded an office clerical employees, guards, and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act
3 The agreement with U S Maintenance was never signed because
Blitz was awarded the Fairlane Manor contract before It was finalized
recognize the Union, saying there would be no problem
with the contract, and that his only worry was that he
would not need as many employees as were currently
working at Fairlane Manor Murdock inquired as to the
number of employees that would be required and Hillner
said about half of the existing number Murdock asked
that hiring be done by seniority The meeting ended with
Milner requesting that Murdock call again with a con-
tract Milner could look at after Blitz got underway
Hillner's version of what happened at this meeting varies
from Murdock's in that he does not remember extending
recognition to the Union and said that he could not
agree to a contract without seeing it first Insofar as
there is a conflict in this testimony, I generally credit
Murdock's version Although I doubt that Milner specif-
ically said he would recognize the Union, he did nothing
and said nothing to indicate that he would not extend
recognition By inviting Murdock to send him a contract,
I believe he was offering to bargain and thus, tacitly ex-
tending recognition
Former U S Maintenance employee and current Blitz
employee Laura Welch testified that she learned of the
change in subcontractors about a week before June 15,
through rumors circulating among the involved employ-
ees On June 15, Welch received a phone call from
Hillner a few hours before she was scheduled to report
to work In this conversation, Milner asked her what her
schedule was and whether she was coming to work that
day She gave him her schedule and replied she planned
to work While working on her shift on June 15, she met
Milner who asked if she were staying on, what her
hourly was, again what was her schedule and wanted to
see the last pay stub she had received from U S Mainte-
nance Hillner said he was not a threat, that there were
going to be schedule changes, but the work would not
change He said that wage rates would remain the same,
and did not mention anything about possible changes in
benefits 4
Welch filled out an application to work for Blitz the
next week She testified that there were no immediate
changes after Blitz took over After a couple of weeks,
there were schedule changes made She asked for a dif-
ferent schedule, but was told by Hillner that the schedule
she wanted was taken by a more senior employee After
a month passed, Welch received her first Blitz paycheck,
which reflected no change in wage rate, but which did
not show a deduction for union dues All of her subse-
quent checks reflected no dues deductions After several
months had passed, she inquired about this of Milner,
who said he would have to speak to his lawyers about it
Another former U S Maintenance and current Blitz
employee, Lester Smith, testified that when he reported
for work on June 16 or 17, after 2 days off, he met
Milner who gave him a job application to fill out Noth-
ing was said to Smith at this time about wages, benefits,
4 The testimony reflects that employees wage rates were not changed
However, without telling the employees, Blitz stopped making dues de-
ductions, stopped paying Insurance and pension payments, and eliminated
accrued vacation It is not clear when employees first learned of these
changes, but it was at the earliest a month or two after they began work-
ing for Blitz
BLITZ MAINTENANCE 1007
or working conditions Smith took the application form
and went to work A couple of days later, he had a bnef
conversation with Milner, who indicated without specif-
ics that some changes were going to be made Smith did
not inquire of Milner about wages and benefits, assuming
they would stay the same as they had each time a new
subcontractor had taken over the housekeeping duties
Smith had been working at Fairlane Manor since 1978,
before the housekeeping was first subcontracted He also
testified that, after noticing that union dues were not de-
ducted from his first paycheck, Hdlner told him that
"they ain't quite the way I want them, but he would
straighten them out later on" Smith's hours and duties
did not change when Blitz took over The first time he
was certain that the terms and conditions of employment
at Blitz were different than they had been under U S
Maintenance was when he asked for a vacation in Sep-
tember Hillner told him he could take an unpaid vaca-
tion whereas his vacations under the previous manage-
ment had been paid ones
Another holdover employee, Carlene Davis, testified
that she first met Milner while working her shift on June
15 He called a meeting of the six or seven housekeeping
employees working the first shift, all of whom were
former U S Maintenance employees Milner gave the
group job applications and told them nothing would
change except maybe the schedules There were no
changes made in Davis' work assignments for about 2
months after the Blitz takeover
Milner did not disagree with the testimony of wit-
nesses Welch, Smith, and Davis He acknowledged that
all of his initial employee complement of 16 people was
composed of former U S Maintenance employees and
that they were hired on the basis of seniority He ac-
knowledged that he told the employees hired that they
would receive the same wages as before and did not tell
them that any other terms and conditions of employment
would change, except for scheduling changes It is ques-
tionable from Hillner's testimony that he actually had in
mind any specific terms and conditions of employment
for his employees as of the time of their employment I
believe that by telling the employees that little change
would occur in their employment and by offering them
their previous wage rate, Hillner effectively led them to
believe that they were working for Blitz under all the
previous terms and conditions of employment they had
enjoyed with U S Maintenance
Murdock called on Blitz again on June 17 and he and
Milner agreed to meet on June 24 to finalize the con-
tract On June 21, Murdock and Milner met to settle a
grievance filed by one of Blitz' employees They success-
fully settled the grievance On June 24, Murdock and an-
other union representative met with Milner as scheduled
Murdock showed him the Union's new agreement with
Fairlane Manor, explaining which parts would apply to
Blitz and which would not According to Murdock,
Hillner only asked about where to send dues and he was
given an address He also asked to send bills for pension
deductions care of Fairlane Manor Milner requested the
Union to send him a copy of the contract he would be
expected to sign, stating that he wanted to show it to his
attorney This contract was sent to Blitz on June 30
Hillner's testimony relating to these events is vague
He acknowledges handling the grievance as described by
Murdock and the fact that they may have met again in
June and had telephone conversations He gave no de-
tails of these encounters, but did not deny that Mur-
dock's description of them was accurate Therefore, I
credit Murdock's testimony fully
After this meeting, the Union was unsuccessful in
reaching Milner until late August, though a number of
calls were placed to him Two letters were also sent to
Milner in August Because of the lack of response, the
Union contacted the general manager of Fairlane Manor
and was given a number where Milner could be reached
During this conversation, Murdock inquired about the
delay in signing the contract and Milner indicated that
the holdup was because of his attorney On September
12, the Union sent a letter to Blitz requesting the names
of current employees, their date of hire and classification
and their rate of pay Also in September, Murdock and
Milner had another telephone conversation In this con-
versation, Hillner indicated that there were two prob-
lems with the contract and that Murdock should contact
Blitz' attorney Murdock testified that he called the at-
torney who told him that he had informed Milner that as
far as he was concerned, Blitz does not have a contract
with the Union, and suggested Murdock again contact
Winer He did and was told by Hillner that he did not
know what his lawyer was talking about and would con-
tact him Milner did not call back and the Union filed an
unfair labor practice charge on September 28 On Octo-
ber 31, the Region dismissed this charge and on the next
day, the Union withdrew it
Hdlner acknowledged his avoidance of the Union as
described above and testified that during this period of
time he was under the impression that he did not have to
deal with the Union based on his attorney's advice Be-
cause of information he gained during the processing of
the unfair labor practice charge, Milner came to the re-
alization that he had an obligation to bargain with the
Union
Shortly thereafter, Murdock called Milner, who in-
formed him that he had changed attorneys Murdock
then called the new attorney who indicated that he be-
lieved that Blitz did not have a contract with the Union
and had no bargaining obligation However, the next
day, Blitz' attorney called Murdock and asked that he
send a copy of the proposed contract to him This copy
did not arrive, so on November 10, a second copy was
mailed On the same date, the Union mailed to Blitz two
grievances On November 21, the Union sent a second
request for information as it had not received a reply to
the first request On November 28, having received no
response to the grievance letter, the Union sent another
letter suggesting a course of action that Blitz should take
with regard to the grievances
Through the intervention and aid of Fairlane Manor's
General Manager, a meeting was held on December 12
between representatives of the Union, Fairlane Manor
and Blitz I believe that had this intervention not taken
place, Blitz may never have voluntarily met with the
Union It certainly gave no indication that it was willing
1008 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to deal with the Union, failing to acknowledge the infor-
mation requests and the grievances Just prior to this
meeting, Blitz had sent the Union its own contract pro-
posal At the meeting, which lasted about 2 hours, the
parties went over their respective proposals Blitz made
what the Union characterized as minor concessions, but
there was no movement by either side on major issues
The Union also reiterated its information request point-
ing out that bargaining was difficult without this infor-
mation Blitz' attorney agreed at this point to provide the
information After the meeting, the Union sent a letter to
Blitz' attorney memorializing the agreement and asking
that it be furnished by December 16 No response was
received to this letter, although a revised contract pro-
posal was received by the Union from Blitz on or about
December 14
In late January, the Union received on Blitz letterhead
a list of employees giving their name, address, phone
number, date of hire and wage rate The Union respond-
ed by letter dated February 20 complaining that the list
provided did, not give all the information requested, par-
ticularly information about employees current terms of
employment including benefits and seniority The parties
next met on April 14, however the Union contends that
even then all the information requested was not provid-
ed Hillner contends that he did comply with the infor-
mation request in a letter he sent to the Union in January
or February It appears that the Union did not receive
this letter, and took the position at the hearing that it did
not fully comply with the request in any event
Since Blitz began providing service to Fairlane Manor,
its work force has fluctuated, but all the documentary
evidence of record reflects that former U S Maintenance
employees have always comprised the majority of Blitz'
employee complement
B Did Respondent as a Successor Employer Violate
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act When it Changed Certain
Existing Terms and Conditions of Employment of as
Employees on or After June 15 Without Prior
Notification to and Bargaining With the Union?
I find from the evidence that Blitz is a successor em-
ployer of the U S Maintenance employees on two
grounds First, I find that in the meeting in June between
Murdock and Milner, Hillner tacitly extended recogni-
tion to the Union He indicated that he would not have a
problem reaching an agreement with the Union and re-
quested that it send him a proposed contract These ac-
tions amounted to a request to begin bargaining which
would of necessity constitute voluntary recognition His
action a few weeks later in handling a grievance with the
Union also supports a finding that Respondent voluntari-
ly recognized the Union, but that Milner changed his
mind after receiving the proposed contract in late June
or early July
Second, Blitz began business on June 15 with an em-
ployee complement composed entirely of former U S
Maintenance employees, hiring a majority of the employ-
ees U S Maintenance had used at Fairlane Manor In Fall
River Dyeing Corp v NLRB, 482 U S 27 (1987), the U S
Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the Board's approach
to determining whether a successorship relationship
exists between two entities In particular, the Court held
that the Board's "substantial and representative comple-
ment" rule is reasonable in the successorship context
The Board's traditional test for determining if a pur-
chaser has a duty to continue the bargaining relationship
established by its predecessor is whether there is a sub-
stantial continuity in the employing enterprise A com-
parison of business operations, plant, work force, jobs,
working conditions, supervisors, machinery, equipment,
production methods, and product or service is made to
ascertain if continuity exists In this case, the work force
remained virtually the same, the jobs performed were the
same, the place of work was the same and the product or
service was the same under Blitz as under U S Mainte-
nance No changes in any terms and conditions ,of em-
ployment, except for some schedule changes, were made
known to the employees at their time of employment or
for a substantial period of time thereafter under the
Board's test as set out above, it is clear that Blitz was a
successor employer
"Although a successor employer is ordinarily free to
set initial terms on which it will hire the employees of a
predecessor there will be instances in which it is perfectly
clear that the new employer plans to retain all of the em-
ployees in the unit and in which It will be appropriate to
have him initially consult with the employees' bargaining
representative before he fixes terms In other situations,
however, it may not be clear until the successor employ-
er has hired his full complement of employees that he
has a duty to bargain with a union, since it will not be
evident until then that the bargaining representative rep-
resents a majority of the employees in the unit as re-
quired by Section 9(a) of the Act, 29 U S C Section
159(a) " NLRB v Burns Security Services, 406 U S 272,
294-295 (1972)
The Board has considered the Burns, "perfectly clear"
caveat and has held in Spruce Up Corp, 209 NLRB 194,
195 (1974)
When an employer who has not yet commenced
operations announces new terms prior to or simulta-
neously with his invitation to the previous work
force to accept employment under those terms, we
do not think it can fairly be said that the new emr
ployer "plans to retain all of the employees in the
unit," as that phrase was intended by the Supreme
Court We believe the caveat in Burns, there-
fore, should be restricted to circumstances in which
the new employer has either actively, or by tacit in-
ference, misled employees into believing they would
all be retained without changes in their wages,
hours or conditions of employment, or at least to
circumstances where the new employer has
failed to clearly announce a new set of conditions
prior to inviting former employees to accept em-
ployment
Except for matters on which a successor employer sets
its own initial terms, the terms and conditions of employ-
ment of union-represented employees will normally be
those established by the predecessor's collective-bargain-
ing agreement or by the predecessor's past practices
BLITZ MAINTENANCE 1009
These established terms and conditions of employment
are kept in place by virtue of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act
rather than by force of contract, because a successor em-
ployer is not bound to adopt a predecessor's collective-
bargaining agreement Burns, supra at 281-291
As of June 15, Blitz was obligated to bargain with the
Union because it had hired a majority of U S Mainten-
ance's employees who were represented by the Union
and because it had voluntarily recognized the Union
Blitz' president did offer employment to the U S Mainte-
nance employees, informing them of no changes in exist-
ing terms and conditions of employment, except for pos-
sible schedule changes He did tell them their wages
would remain the same and as few changes as possible
would be made to keep things running smoothly Milner
admitted that he set no specific terms and conditions of
employment when he hired his crew of 16 former U S
Maintenance employees, and wanted to keep things as
they were until he could size up any necessary changes
Because Blitz did not tell its prospective employees its
initial terms and conditions of employment, Blitz was ob-
ligated to continue the terms and conditions of its prede-
cessor, U S Maintenance, until it notified the Union of
any proposed changes and bargained over those pro-
posed changes Fremont Ford, 289 NLRB 1290 (1988),
Bachrodt Chevrolet Go, 205 NLRB 784 (1973), Stephenson
Haus, 279 NLRB 998, 1002 (1986)
Blitz' bargaining obligation began with its voluntary
recognition of the Union in early June, or at the very
latest on June 15, when it hired a majority of U S Main-
tenance employees to work for Blitz at Fairlane Manor
The Union had made a demand for bargaining shortly
before June 15, and then again on June 17 and 24 Blitz'
unilateral changes in terms and conditions of employ-
ment after June 15 violate Section 8(a)(5) of the Act
Fremont Ford, supra at 21
C Did Respondent Violate Section 8(a)(5) of the Act
by Refusing to Respond in a Timely Fashion to all of
the Union's Requests for Information Pursuant to its
Function as the Bargaining Representative of
Respondent's Employees'
As part of its statutory obligation to bargain in good
faith, Respondent must supply information that is neces-
sary and relevant to the Union's performance of its func-
tions as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative
for unit employees NLRB v Acme Industrial Go, 385
U S 432 (1967), NLRB v Truitt Mfg Go, 351 US 149
(1956) In order to be in a position to bargain, the Union
on September 12, November 21, December 12, and Feb-
ruary 20, 1989, requested from Blitz the names, address-
es, hire date, seniority, wages, and other terms and con-
ditions of employment of its employees Blitz flatly re-
fused to supply such information until December 12, and
then did not supply any information until late January It
has still not provided all the information requested I find
that such information is patently necessary and relevant
to the performance of the Union's statutory functions
and that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of
the Act by failing and refusing to supply such informa-
tion in a timely manner Fremont Ford, supra at 21 and
23
D Did Respondent Bargain in Bad Faith with the
Charging Party in Violation of Section 8(a)(5) by
Refusing to Provide Relevant Information Requested
by the Union, by Unilaterally Changing Terms and
Conditions of Employment of its Employees Without
Prior Notification to and Bargaining with the Union
and by Failing and Refusing to Timely Meet and
Bargain with the Union over Terms and Conditions of
Employment for its Employees?
Despite repeated attempts by the Union to contact
Blitz after June 24, it refused to acknowledge or answer
these attempts until late October or early November,
after the filing of unfair labor practice charges by the
Union As it had an obligation to meet and bargain in
good faith with the Union beginning in June, this dilato-
ry conduct clearly constitutes bad-faith bargaining in vio-
lation of Section 8(a)(5) Its continuing failure and refusal
to supply requested information and unilateral changes in
the employees' terms and conditions of employment also
constitute bad-faith bargaining
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Respondent Blitz Maintenance, Inc is an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act
2 Local 24, Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employ-
ees Union, AFL-CIO is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act
3 All housekeeping employees employed by Respond-
ent, but excluding all office clerical employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act
4 At all times material to this proceeding, the Union
had been the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act of a
unit consisting of the housekeeping employees of U S
Maintenance Corporation employed pursuant to its con-
tract with Fairlane Manor, Inc and had been recognized
as such majority representative by U S Maintenance
Corporation
5 Since on or about June 15, 1988, Respondent em-
ployed as a majority of its employees in the bargaining
unit described in paragraph 3, above, individuals who
were previously housekeeping employees of U S Mainte-
nance Corporation
6 Respondent has continued as the employing entity
and is a successor of U S Maintenance Corporation with
regard to the unit of housekeeping employees
7 Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and
(5) of the Act by
(a) Since on or about June 15, 1988, and continuing to
date, unilaterally departing from the preexisting rates of
pay and benefits and changing other terms and condi-
tions of employment of its employees in the unit de-
scribed above without prior notification to and bargain-
ing with the Union
(b) Failing and refusing to provide in a timely manner
all of the information requested of it by the Union in let-
1010 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ters dated September 12, November 21, December 12,
1988, and February 20, 1989
(c) Since on or about June 15, 1988, and continuing to
date, failing and refusing to bargain in good faith with
the Union by refusing to reply to the Union's requests to
meet and bargain, by failing and refusing to supply in a
timely manner necessary and relevant information re-
quested by the Union and by unilaterally changing the
terms and conditions of its employees in the unit de-
scribed above
8 The unfair labor practices found above are unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices, it is recommended that Respondent be
ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act
It is further recommended that Respondent be or-
dered, upon request of the Union, to rescind any changes
in the rates of pay, benefits, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment of its employees that existed imme-
diately before its becoming a successor of U S Mainte-
nance Corporation, and make its employees whole for
any losses suffered as a result of its unilateral changes
until it negotiates in good faith with the Union to agree-
ment or impasse 5 To the extent that it has not already
done so, furnish to the Union all the information request-
ed by it in its requests of September 12, November 21,
December 12, 1988, and February 20, 1989 Respondent
should be further ordered to, upon request, bargain in
good faith with the Union as the exclusive representative
of all employees in the appropriate unit concerning their
terms and conditions of employment and, if an under-
standing is reached, embody it in a signed contract
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed'
ORDER
The Respondent, Blitz Maintenance, Inc , Dearborn,
Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Since on or about June 15, 1988, and continuing to
date, unilaterally departing from the preexisting rates of
5 The affected employees shall be made whole in accordance with Ogle
Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), with interest as prescribed in
New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987) The Respondent
shall remit all payments it owes to the employee benefit funds and reim-
burse its employees in the matter set forth in Kraft Plumbing II Heating,
252 NLRB 891 fn 2 (1980), enfd mem 661 F 2d 940 (9th Cir 1981), for
any expenses resulting from the Respondent's failure to make these pay-
ments Any amounts that the Respondent must pay Into the benefit funds
shall be determined in the manner set forth in Merryweather Optical Co,
240 NLRB 1213, 1216 fn 7 (1979)
6 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses
pay and benefits and changing other terms and condi-
tions of employment of its employees in the unit de-
scribed below without prior notification to and bargain-
ing with the Union
All housekeeping employees employed by Respond-
ent, but excluding all office clerical employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act
(b) Failing and refusing to provide in a timely manner
all of the information requested of it by the Union in let-
ters dated September 12, November 21, December 12,
1988, and February 20, 1989
(c) Since on or about June 15, 1988, and continuing to
date, failing and refusing to bargain in good faith with
the Union by refusing to reply to the Union's requests to
meet and bargain, by failing and refusing to supply in a
timely manner necessary and relevant information re-
quested by the Union and by unilaterally changing the
terms and conditions of its employees in the unit de-
scnbed above
(d) 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 with the Union as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the appropriate unit
described above concerning terms and conditions of em-
ployment and, if an understanding is reached, embody
the understanding in a signed agreement
(b) Furnish to the Union, on request and in a timely
fashion, the information requested by its letters dated
September 12, November 21, December 12, 1988, and
February 20, 1989
(c) On request of the Union, rescind the unilateral
changes in the unit employees' rates of pay, benefits, and
other terms and conditions of employment that were im-
plemented on June 15, 1988, and make affected employ-
ees whole for losses they incurred by virtue of its unilat-
eral changes in their rates of pay, benefits, and other
terms and conditions of employment from June 15, 1988,
until it bargains in good faith with the Union to agree-
ment or to impasse, in the manner set forth in the
remedy section of this decision
(d) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records nec-
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order
(e) Post at its office and, if allowed upon request, at
the facilities of Fairlane Manor, Inc in Dearborn, Michi-
gan, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix "7
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 7, after being signed by the Re-
7 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board" shall read 'Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of
the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board"
BLITZ MAINTENANCE 1011
spondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material
(f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights
To organize
To form, Join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protec-
tion
To choose not to engage in any of these protect-
ed concerted activities
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain in good
faith with Local 24, Hotel Employees and Restaurant
Employees Union, AFL-CIO as the exclusive bargaining
representative of employees in the bargaining unit
All housekeeping employees of Blitz Maintenance,
Inc, excluding all office clerical employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act
WE WILL NOT unilaterally change rates of pay and
benefits and other terms and conditions of employment
for bargaining unit employees
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to timely supply the
Union, on its request, relevant information reasonably
necessary for the proper performance of its duties as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the bargain-
ing unit
WE WILL not in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union and put
in writing and sign an agreement reached on terms and
conditions of employment for our employees in the bar-
gaining unit
WE WILL furnish to the Union, on request and in a
timely fashion, the information requested by its letters of
September 12, November 21, December 12, 1988, and
February 20, 1989
WE WILL, on request of the Union, rescind the unilat-
eral changes in our unit employees' rates of pay and ben-
efits and other terms and conditions of employment that
we implemented June 15, 1988, and WE WILL make af-
fected employees whole for losses they incurred by
virtue of our unilateral changes to their rates of pay, ben-
efits, and other terms and conditions of employment
BLITZ MAINTENANCE, INC