Bundy Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 25, 1989

292 N.L.R.B. 671 (N.L.R.B. 1989)

BUNDY CORP 671
Bundy Corporation and International Union, United
Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Imple
ment Workers of America (UAW) Cases 7-
CA-27005, 7-CA-27480(l), and 7-CA-
27480(3)
January 25, 1989
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND HIGGINS
On July 20, 1988, Administrative Law Judge
Walter H Maloney issued the attached decision
The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three
member panel
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and brief and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, i and
conclusions, as modified below, 2 and to adopt the
recommended Order as modified
1 We agree with the judge's finding that the Re
spondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by
failing to notify and bargain with the Union, be
tween the election and certification, concerning its
changes in employee job duties and working condi-
tions and its economically motivated layoffs of
Lowell Bates, Sheila Hannibal, and Rosemary
Vroman The Respondent has filed exceptions to
the judge's finding of these 8(a)(5) violations, in-
cluding its failure to bargain over the layoffs, and
to the make whole remedy ordered We find the
Respondent's exceptions to be without merit The
judge's unfair labor practice finding and recom-
mended remedy with respect to the layoffs are in
accordance with Board precedent See Adair
Standish Corp, 290 NLRB 317, 319 (1988), Lapeer
Foundry & Machine, 289 NLRB 952 (1988), Felbro
Inc, 274 NLRB 1268 (1985), enfd in relevant part
795 F 2d 705 (9th Cir 1986)
2 We affirm, for the following reasons, the
judge's finding that the Respondent also violated
Section 8(a)(5) by its unreasonable delay in furnish-
' The record is insufficient to support the judge s finding in sec I B of
his decision that the Respondent does not offer vacation benefits In
addition we note that the judge inadvertently referred to Foreman Ed
monds written disciplinary warning to employee Flowers on October 2
1987 as a step two instead of a step one warning These inaccuracies do
not affect our decision to affirm the judge s remaining findings
2 The judge included a visitatorial clause in his remedy authorizing the
Board for compliance purposes to obtain discovery from the Respond
ent under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure subject to the supervision
of the United States court of appeals enforcing this Order Under the cir
cumstances of this case we find merit in the Respondent s exception and
deem it unnecessary to include such a clause Cherokee Marine Terminal
287 NLRB 1080 ( 1988) Accordingly we will modify the remedy by de
leting the visitatorial clause
ing information demanded by the Union for bar-
gaining
Beginning about 10 days after the Union's certifi-
cation on September 4, 1987, International Union
Representative Spillman wrote, and also visited,
Plant Manager Stebelton to request bargaining On
September 29, Personnel Director Clinton wrote to
Spillman and requested the Union to forward its
initial contract proposal to the Respondent in ad-
vance of the first negotiating meeting Spillman re-
plied to Clinton on October 2, requesting informa
tion pertaining to employee classifications, pay
rates, seniority, retirement, and fringe benefits,
which he stated was needed prior to the first meet
ing Thereafter, on October 20, Union Regional Di
rector Marshall apprised Clinton by letter that
DeMott had been designated as the chief union ne-
gotiator, and that DeMott would be assisted by
Spillman The Respondent made no response to
Spillman's request for information by October 30
On that date DeMott wrote to Clinton, requesting
that bargaining begin on November 16, and de
manding by November 16 the information previ-
ously demanded by Spillman as well as copies of
any employee benefit programs during the prior 2
years
On November 6, Clinton wrote to decline the
November 16 meeting date because of prior com-
mitments Clinton's letter repeated the request for a
copy of the Union's bargaining demands in ad-
vance of bargaining, it also included an employee
handbook and a statement that he was still in the
process of collecting insurance costs Other than
the handbook, no information was furnished to the
Union
At the first negotiating meeting on December 1,
the Union made another demand on Clinton for the
same material, and Clinton replied that he still did
not have it
However, at the parties' second bargaining ses
lion on December 14, Clinton handed DeMott a
package containing, inter alia, pay rates, a seniority
list, insurance costs, and a copy of the pension
plan DeMott testified at the hearing that he initial
ly believed Clinton's package was complete, but
that he later realized that he was still lacking infor-
mation concerning the employees' sickness and ac-
cident, and death and disability insurance plans
DeMott testified that he obtained the missing infor
mation by telephoning Clinton about 2 days later 3
The judge concluded that the Respondent delayed
furnishing the requested information for an unrea
3 DeMott s testimony was given in clarification of the earlier oral stip
ulation by the parties at the heanng that the Union has received all of
the information that was requested as of December 12th or 14th
292 NLRB No 69
672 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sonable amount of time and thereby violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(5) of the Act.
The Respondent argues that a lapse of 6 weeks,
in complying with DeMott's October 30 demand,4
is not unreasonable and does not warrant an 8(a)(5)
finding. We do not agree.
It is clear from the foregoing that the Respond-
ent, after conditioning its willingness to meet with
the Union on its ability to review the Union's con-
tract proposals in advance of bargaining, then pro-
ceeded, for 2-1/2 months, to ignore or delay sup-
plying the Union with the necessary information
for the preparation of its contract proposals. In de-
fense of the delay, the Respondent cites its corpo-
rate officials' preoccupation with an impending ac-
quisition, the Union's own failure to repeat its re-
quests for information during the numerous tele-
phone conversations with the Respondent during
that period, and its implicit belief that it was not
obliged to comply with Spillman's initial demand
for information made on October 2 because he was
only DeMott's assistant . We find the Respondent's
reasons for its delay to be specious, particularly in
light of the nature of the requested material, which
could readily have been obtained from the Re-
spondent's plant or home office files. In any event,
we conclude from the foregoing that the Respond-
ent's delay in furnishing the Union with the re-
quested information impeded the Union's prepara-
tions for the upcoming negotiations with the Re-
spondent, including its efforts to comply with the
latter's request to submit a contract proposal in ad-
vance, and in general interfered with the Union's
ability to represent the unit employees, in an in-
formed and effective manner from the outset of
bargaining. In short, the delay was, like other un-
lawful conduct of the Respondent, in derogation of
the Union's status as the employees' exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative. Accordingly, we
adopt the judge's 8(a)(5) refusal to furnish informa-
tion finding.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge as modified below and orders that the Re-
spondent, Bundy Corporation, Hillsdale, Michigan,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
take the action set forth in the Order as modified.
Substitute the following for paragraph 2(f).
"(f) Notify the Regional Director in writing
within 20 days from the date of this Order what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply."
4 The Respondent's reliance on this date fails to account for the fact
that the Union's information request was originally made on October 2.
Richard P. Connolly, Esq., of Detroit, Michigan , for the
General Counsel.
John A. Entenman, Esq., of Detroit, Michigan , for the
Respondent.
Don Spillman and David DeMott, International Repre-
sentatives , of Flint, Michigan, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1. FINDINGS OF FACT
WALTER H. MALONEY, Administrative Law Judge.
This case came on for hearing before me at Hillsdale,
Michigan, on a consolidated unfair labor practice com-
plaint' issued by the Regional Director for Region 7 of
the National Labor Relations Board, which alleges Re-
spondent Bundy Corporation2 violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (5) of the Act. More particularly, the consolidated
complaint alleges that the Respondent coercively interro-
gated one of its employees concerning her union activi-
ties; unilaterally changed the job content of bargaining
unit employees without first notifying the Union and bar-
gaining over the changes; attempted to establish a pro-
gram apart from collective bargaining to solicit griev-
ances and resolve issues concerning wages, hours, and
terms and conditions of employment; unreasonably de-
layed furnishing the Union with information relevant to
collective bargaining that the Union requested; and uni-
laterally engaged in the layoffs of Lowell Bates, Sheila
Hannibal, and Rosemary Vroman without bargaining
with the Union concerning the layoffs. Most, but not all,
of these events occurred between March 5, 1987, when
the Union won a representation election, and September
4, 1987, when the Board certified the Union for the
Hillsdale production and maintenance unit. The Re-
spondent denies engaging in any coercive interrogations,
states that any unilateral changes in working conditions
were de minimis, that its program aimed at improving
' The principal docket entries in this case are as follows:
Charge filed against the Respondent by International Union , United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW) (the Union) in Case 7-CA-27005 on June 1 , 1987; amended
charge filed by the Union against the Respondent in Case 7-CA-27005
on June 18 , 1987; complaint issued by the Regional Director against the
Respondent in Case 7-CA-27005 on July 31, 1987; Respondent's answer
filed on August 6, 1987; charge filed against Respondent by the Union in
Cases 7-CA-27480(l) and 7-CA-27480(3) on November 13, 1987; con-
solidated complaint issued in both cases against the Respondent on De-
cember 30, 1987; Respondent's answer to consolidated complaint filed on
January 7, 1988; hearing held in Hillsdale, Michigan, on April 27, 28, and
29; Briefs filed with me by the General Counsel and the Respondent on
June 27, 1988.
2 Respondent admits, and I find , that it is a corporation organized pur-
suant to the laws of the State of Michigan, which maintains a place of
business in Hillsdale, Michigan , where it is engaged in the manufacture
and nonretail sale and distribution of automobile parts. During calendar
year 1986, Respondent , in the course and conduct of this business, manu-
factured , sold, and distributed from its Hillsdale , Michigan place of busi-
ness products valued in excess of $100,000, of which products valued in
excess of $50,000 were shipped directly from this plant to points and
places located outside the State of Michigan. Accordingly, the Respond-
ent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec. 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act. The Union is a labor organization within the
meaning of Sec. 2(5) of the Act.
BUNDY CORP
the quality of worklife at the plant was never implement
ed, and that the layoffs were permissible because they
were undertaken for nondiscriminatory reasons and in
accordance with the Company s past practices On these
contentions the issues here were framed
A The Unfair Labor Practices Alleged
Respondent is a supplier of the big three automobile
companies and for that purpose operates several plants in
the United States and Canada that are engaged in the
manufacturing of various kinds of automotive parts Most
of those plants including one at Coldwater, Michigan,
are unionized The plant involved in this proceeding, lo
cated at Hillsdale , Michigan is unorganized and has
about 35 persons in its production and maintenance unit
This figure has increased dramatically in recent months
The Hillsdale plant has been in existence since 1979 and
is principally engaged in the manufacture of an item
called a push rod
The normal workday at Bundy Hillsdale for the first
shift is 6 a in to 3 30 p in, Monday thru Thursday and 6
until 10 am on Friday The afternoon shift is similarly
structured so that the regular Friday shift lasts only 4
hours On Thursday, March 5, 1987, a representation
election was conducted among the production and main
tenance employees between 3 15 and 3 45 p in a time
span that bridged the end of the first shift and the begin
ning of the second Votes were counted immediately
thereafter showing that the Union had won by a margin
of two votes Respondent filed timely objections and a
hearing on those objections was conducted by the Re
gional Director on April 10 The Regional Director
overruled the objections so the Respondent appealed his
decision to the Board On September 4, 6 months follow
ing the election, the Board also overruled the objections
and certified the Union The first bargaining session did
not take place until December 1 some 9 months follow
ing the election Most of the events that were litigated in
this case took place during that interim
On Friday, February 27 the Respondent posted a
notice at the Hillsdale plant soliciting a volunteer for
layoff As more fully discussed infra the Respondent
conventionally sought volunteers in layoff situations and
engaged in involuntary layoffs only when it was not able
to find enough employees who wanted to take time off
The Respondent does not offer vacation benefits so it has
often been able to obtain requests from employees who
are willing to take voluntary layoffs and draw unemploy
ment compensation The February 27 notice read Due
to continuing low levels of demand we are accepting one
volunteer for lay off effective 3-6-87 Anyone interested
please sign by 3-4-87 Two employees Linda Brown
and Brian Gilpin signed the list Later Brown changed
her mind and struck her name from the list leaving only
Gilpin
On March 5, Lowell Bates a second shift production
employee served as union observer at the election The
following day Bates, who had the lowest seniority of
any production employee but not the lowest plantwide
seniority was called into the office and given an indefi
nite layoff Art Stebelton , the plant manager told him
that there was a low demand and that the plant was
673
overstaffed by one employee Bates testified that he was
in a state of shock because maintenance employee Doug
Marquard had less seniority than he did Stebelton told
Bates, as the latter was cleaning out his locker , that the
Company would try to get him back to work as soon as
it could 3 On May 26, Bates found another job so he re
signed from the Company on June 30 At no time was he
ever offered a recall
On May 15 Stebelton called machine operators Rose
mary Vroman and Sheila Hannibal into his office and
told them that they were being laid off This news came
as a surprise to both of them because the Company had
not posted a request for layoff volunteers Stebelton at
tributed the layoff to a decline in production and said
that they would be laid off for an indefinite period of
time but not less than 90 days Both employees asked
Stebelton if he had solicited volunteers for these layoffs
and he said no Both were the machine operators with
the least seniority , although maintenance man Marquard
had less seniority than either of them Hannibal ultimate
ly quit on August 27 before being offered recall Vroman
was recalled on November 18 and was working at the
time of the hearing in this case
On May 20 UAW International Representative Don
Spillman wrote Stebelton the following letter
As you are aware, we won an election on March
5, 1987 Your company filed objections a hearing
was held on April 10 , 1987, in Hillsdale , and again
you know that the National Labor Relations Board
upheld our election 4
Since we are now a Union plant we would like
to request a meeting to discuss a lay off and re call
provision at your location
Neither Stebelton nor anyone else replied to this letter
In April and May 1987 the Respondent began to im
plement a so called Just In Time (JIT) method of inven
tory control Its major customers had developed a pro
gram of placing the Hillsdale (and possibly other) plants
on a short lease In order to reduce their own invento
rtes (and the amount of money tied up in such invento
rtes) the auto companies began to require the Company
to supply needed parts in comparatively small amounts
but on extremely short notice To reduce its own inven
tory of raw materials Bundy Hillsdale began to impose
the same kind of short notice delivery requirements on
its own suppliers
Coincidentally with revisions in its inventory control
program, the Respondent inaugurated a program of job
enlargement among its production and maintenance em
3 Notwithstanding this sequence of events the General Counsel elected
to prosecute the discharge of Bates as a unilateral discharge in violation
of Sec 8(a)(5) of the Act rather than a discriminatory discharge in viola
Lion of Sec 8(a)(3) of the Act Accordingly the facts and circumstances
surrounding this event will have to be analyzed in terms of the Respond
ent s duty to bargain rather than in terms of its duty to refrain from dis
criminating against employees on the basis of their union activities
4 The reference here was to the action of the Regional Director in De
troit The Board did not act on the objections until September 4 when it
upheld the Regional Director overruled the objections and certified the
Union
674 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees. s Employee meetings for both shifts were held at
two local restaurants in which JIT was explained. Em-
ployees were told that they would be expected to take
on more responsibility for the maintenance and operation
of their machines and that their workload would be
heavier than before. Most of the changes were imple-
mented beginning about May 15, but there were no
changes in wages to accompany the changes in job
duties . In most instances the changes involved a require-
ment on the part of machine operators that they learn to
perform new functions. One such change involved the
use of forklifts by machine operators. Previously, it was
the practice of either the foremen or salaried nonunit
technicians to use forklifts to move stock to production
machines and to cart away .finished products . Some unit
employees used forklifts occasionally, but these were em-
ployees assigned to quality control or to shipping and re-
ceiving. All that most machine operators did was run
machines.
Following the implementation of the new program, all
machine operators were and are expected to know how
to operate a forklift and to service their own machine by
obtaining stock and taking away finished products. The
State of Michigan requires the examination and licensing
of forklift operators. On July 17, an employee of the
State Department of Labor came to the plant and gave
forklift examinations to employees who previously did
not have such licenses. Various employees testified credi-
bly as to the impact of their new use of forklifts. Em-
ployee Rosemary Vroman testified that now she uses a
forklift at least 3 or 4 times a day and sometimes as often
as 10 or 12 times a day. Employee Sherree Flowers cred-
ibly testified that grinders, medarts, and choppers now
use the forklift machine more than 10 minutes a day and
that she drives a forklift as much as 2 hours a day.
Other jobs, such as checking gauges, replacing blades,
and cleaning the copper tips on welding machines, which
were formerly performed by salaried technicians, were
assigned to operators, while technicians and general fore-
men started to do welding work over substantial periods
of time formerly done by bargaining unit employees as-
signed to use the automatic welding machine . Rosemary
Vroman estimated that she now spends 10 minutes each
day cleaning copper tips on welding machines. She fur-
ther testified credibly that she spends between 5 minutes
and 1 hour a day in all performing tasks that she did not
perform before May 1987. Some of the jobs absorbed by
bargaining unit personnel were performed by working
foremen or by technicians whom the Company was able
to discharge.
Also inaugurated at this time was a Quality of Work
Life (QWL) program which the Respondent had been
using at some of its other plants. In the fall of 1986, the
6 The word "coincidentally" is used because the Respondent failed to
demonstrate in this record any necessary causal connection between JIT,
a revised program of inventory control to meet short orders from its cus-
tomers, and the program of job enlargement it instituted resulting in unit
employees doing more work for the same pay. Moreover, during the
classes that were conducted by the Respondent for its employees, the
Company never explained what connection , if any, the inventory control
program might have with the additional duties they were expected to
perform.
Respondent announced that a QWL program would be
started at the Hillsdale plant, but nothing was done about
it until May 11, when a notice was posted informing em-
ployees concerning the election of a steering committee.
The notice read in part:
After last Friday' s session , the next step is to
select a "Steering Committee." The typical steering
committee for a plant this size would be three
people including the plant manager. We need to
select those people.
The steering committee will "steer" the employee
involvement teams. They will establish the ground
rules for the teams, they will select the facilitator,
they will review and approve or disapprove team
projects prior to the teams starting work on them
and will review the team's proposals prior to imple-
mentation.
The steering committee would meet monthly
from 3:00 p.m, until all business was completed and
would receive straight time pay for the time in-
volved. The meeting time would not pay overtime,
and would meet monthly.
Each shift should think about who they want on
that steering committee. At our monthly meeting,
Wednesday, May 13, 1987, which will be a separate
shift meeting, I will ask for nominations and those
nominations will be voted on. Majority nominees
win the elections.
On May 13, Plant Manager Stebelton, Purchasing Agent
Robert Pfeiffer, and bargaining unit employee Robert
Hackworth were elected to the steering committee. Em-
ployees were told by Stebelton at one of the regular
monthly employee meetings that they should pass along
to management their ideas about improvements in the
plant through the steering committee.
The steering committee held a series of meetings
throughout the summer of 1987. One of its tasks was to
select a facilitator, who was expected to serve as the liai-
son linking the steering committee and a number of em-
ployee groups simply referred to as teams. On July 8,
they selected Sherree Flowers. During the following
week, Flowers and Stebelton attended a week-long semi-
nar in St . Clair, Michigan, on the subject of QWL,
which was conducted by the Michigan Department of
Labor. The purpose of the seminar was to train facilita-
tors and steering committee members. During the open-
ing session of this seminar, when participants were called
on to introduce themselves and to state why they were
attending, Stebelton told his fellow participants that
Bundy-Hillsdale was interested in implementing a QWL
program because its employees had voted in a union in
March. On their return to Hillsdale, Stebelton and Flow-
ers prepared and distributed to the bargaining unit a brief
report on the seminar. Stebelton's remarks included the
following statement:
The resultant decision from the QWL process is
usually the best because the input is open and the
options have been investigated before implementa-
tion.
BUNDY CORP
The seminar teaches that exact principle but ex
pands the decision making process to include people
from throughout the plant It works because the
best decisions come about as the result of a clear,
complete understanding of the problem and a wide
group commitment to make the decision work This
process is what this plant needs We have been di
vided too long, lets pull together as a team and
make this plant succeed'
Among the types of projects suggested by the steering
committee for possible involvement by employee teams
were the condition of the parking lot whether soft drink
vending machines should feature Pepsi Cola rather than
Coca Cola, problems with plant air conditioning, plant
policy concerning makeup time eliminating the blow out
unit, new methods for length adjustment of cutoffs and
pigeon holes for cutoff jobs, minimizing waste due to
scrapped parts, and housekeeping suggestions Among
the items which were off limits for employee team in
volvement in the QWL program were rates of pay, bene
fits programs production rates, workloads, and attitude
problems These were deemed to be problems best dis
cussed directly with the production foreman or the plant
manager
On August 25 an employee team of five members was
selected for the purpose of a pilot training session for
prospective team members On September 1 and 3 they
were given a total of 8 hours of training concerning
what would be expected of employees selected for QWL
teams The pilot training sessions were critiqued by a
member of the steering committee In a prepared speech
to this group Stebelton remarked on the Company s
commitment to the QWL program as evidenced by the
amount of money that it had spent on QWL training He
told the team that Darrell Gobel Respondents group
plant manager had spoken to Stebelton on many occa
sions about the importance of QWL He repeated
Gobel s statement that this process not only will help
insure a future for the Company, but it is the way to
treat people In his prepared remarks Stebelton called
the process
imperative for this plant We have tried in the past
to adopt the principles in an informal manner It
doesn t appear to have worked So let s be flexible
and do the formal procedure We have a steering
committee That committee has formed a philoso
phy and some guidelines A facilitator has been se
lected and trained We are ready to form a team
train that team as best as we can and put the proc
ess into action That s why you are here Both
Sherree and I know that some of you are pro union
and some are anti union but don t let those opinions
influence your decision making in this training ses
sion or later in your team projects You will be
making decisions that effect everyone in the plant
Remember, you are dealing with people's
working conditions safety and their livelihood
As an example of the type of problem the QWL teams
should be addressing and how it should go about solving
the problem, this training session used the cleanliness of
675
the floors as a model for discussion and team action One
of the items in the critique listed as bad was the com
ment that facilitators should not wear inflammatory
pins The reference was to the fact that during her
presentation Flowers wore both QWL and UAW pins
on her clothing
In December, the first regular employee QWL team
was selected and given a training session The team was
composed of five employees who were told about a
number of questions they could address, such as the se
lection of a soft drink vending machine or the paving of
the employee parking lot However, their activity never
went any further By this time the Respondent had
begun to negotiate with the Union and during a January
session the Union objected to the QWL program, so it
was discontinued
Following the Board certification, Spillman wrote an
other letter to Stebelton, dated September 14 requesting
a meeting to discuss hours, wages and other terms and
conditions of employment for the purpose of reaching an
agreement Stebelton made no response so Spillman
went to the plant to speak to him Stebelton told Spill
man that the company attorney would send a reply
On September 29, Daniel J Clinton the Respondent s
director of personnel and industrial relations, wrote to
Spillman, as follows
Please be advised that we are ready to negotiate
with you While we continue to doubt that a major
ity of our employees support representation by the
UAW we will fully comply with the recent order
of the National Labor Relations Board
The principal negotiators on behalf of the Com
pany will be myself and John Entenman Please
advise us as to who will represent the Union While
we will release an appropriate number of unit em
ployees to attend negotiations we will not compen
sate them for time missed
We suggest that you prepare your first offer and
send it to me at your earliest convenience We
would like to review it prior to our first meeting
However as you may know the Bundy Corpora
tion is being purchased by TI of London England
It may take a few weeks before we know the direc
tion they may wish to take in this matter
On October 2 Spillman wrote to Clinton informing
him that David DeMottand would represent the UAW
and that the plant committee would be composed of
Mike Clark, Sherree Flowers Craig Winner and April
Waterman He asked to start bargaining on October 8
and to continue until a contract was reached He also re
quested the following information saying that the Union
needed it prior to the first meeting
A seniority list
Each classification in the Plant
Pay rates by employees
Copy of the 5500 forms covering pension and in
surance plans and supporting schedules
Cost of life insurance
676 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Cost of hospital and medical insurance
Cost of dental insurance
A copy of the retirement plan along with a copy
of the benefits package Most recent evaluation and
cost of attached
The Union received no immediate reply to this letter
On October 20, 1987 Stan Marshall, the UAW region
al director for the area that includes Hillsdale, wrote
Clinton a letter indicating that David M DeMott would
be the UAW s lead negotiator assisted by Spillman
DeMott was acquainted with Clinton and had negotiated
contracts with Clinton covering the Bundy plant in
nearby Coldwater Michigan
Following Marshall s letter DeMott wrote Clinton a
letter dated October 30 reiterating the demand for in
formation Spillman had made in his letter of October 2
He asked for copies of any benefit programs offered to
the Hillsdale Bundy employees in the previous 2 years
He also asked that the material be provided no later than
November 10 and told Clinton that he had set aside the
entire week of November 16 for bargaining He request
ed that bargaining start on November 16
On November 6, Clinton sent DeMott a copy of a 25
page employee handbook and stated that he was in the
process of collecting cost information He did not send
any booklet at that time that outlined insurance costs
Clinton declined to meet on dates suggested by DeMott
claiming that his schedule was full but he indicated that
he would call DeMott the following week to arrange a
date He also requested a copy of the Union s bargaining
demands so they could be reviewed previous to the first
negotiating session That meeting was finally held on De
cember I
At the December 1 meeting Clinton was asked orally
for the material that had previously been requested He
replied that he did not have it At the next negotiating
session on December 14, Clinton handed DeMott a pack
age that contained cost data on the insurance program,
the pay rates at the Hillsdale plant a seniority list a
copy of the pension plan and evaluation of the plan, and
a copy of the Labor Department Form 5500, which had
been filed in December Clinton made no explanation as
to why it took him more than 2 months to supply this
information After looking over the package DeMott
found that the Respondent still had not answered all the
Union s questions A few days later, he called Clinton
and asked him for cost data pertaining to two of the Re
spondent s insurance programs Clinton gave DeMott
this information over the telephone
On October 2, Edmonds summoned Flowers into his
office for a disciplinary warning The office in question
is an enclosed room, having glass panels on three sides,
that is located on the production floor From time to
time employees come in and out of the office on various
errands On the occasion in question the door was shut
and no one else entered or left for over an hour while
Edmonds spoke with Flowers Edmonds told her that
she was being written up for having too many defects
and rejects on the parts that she was producing Her
reply was that she was being set up by other employees
in the plant Edmonds said that this was not possible be
cause there was no way that anyone else could put de
fective parts in the middle of her stack where they were
found He asked her to be more careful in the future and
she said that she would The written warning that was
placed in her personnel folder constituted step two in the
Respondents progressive discipline system
I credit Flowers to the effect that the conversation
then turned to the question of her union activities At
that point it became quite heated 6 Edmonds accused
Flowers of lying to him when she was interviewed for a
job Flowers had come from a unionized plant and had
told Edmonds during her hiring in interview that she did
not care whether she worked in a union plant so long as
she was treated properly Edmonds reminded her on this
occasion that she had spoken these words to him in the
same office where they were then talking Flowers said
that she meant what she had said at the time and that she
would not have changed her mind if she had been treat
ed right Edmonds asked her why she was spending so
much time with the bargaining committee when she
could be home looking after her husband and her horse
Her reply was that she was doing it because she cared
Edmonds retorted that she must care because she was
spending so much time at it When the discussion con
cluded, Edmonds presented the writeup to her for her
signature , but she refused to sign it
As of the time of the hearing in this case, the parties
had still not concluded a contract The Union was in the
process of taking strike votes while the Respondent had
hired 25 additional employees and was working three
shifts for the purpose of building up a strike bank of
available parts
B Analysis and Conclusions
1 Animus and independent 8(a)(1) violations of the
Act
I credit the testimony of former technician Brian
Gilpin that on April 24 1987 when he was fired he was
told by Stebelton and Edmonds that he was being fired
because of his union activities Although neither this
event nor their statement was alleged as a violation of
the Act it demonstrated animus on the part of the Re
spondent to unionization and the whole idea of collective
bargaining at the Hillsdale plant
On October 2 the Respondents general foreman
called a leading union activist into the plant office and
administered written discipline to her for production
shortcomings On this occasion Edmonds accused her of
lying to him about her union sympathies and asked her
why she was spending so much time on union activities
This conversation was characterized in the consolidated
complaint as interrogation, although the questions asked
were not designed so much to elicit information as to
berate Flowers for exercising her Section 7 rights How
ever Edmonds conduct might be described it was coer
cive both because of the setting in which it took place
6 Edmonds admits participation in a conversation with Flowers which
contained many of the statements recounted by her However he insists
that the conversation took place in the foreman s office several weeks
later I discredit this assertion
BUNDY CORP
and because of the nature of the remarks that he made to
an employee Accordingly those remarks constitute a
violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act
The Respondent was able to stave off collective bar
gaining for nearly 9 months from the time the Union first
demonstrated its entitlement to recognition First it filed
baseless objections, then it told the Union that even
though it would negotiate because it had to it still
doubted the Union s majority status and said quite can
didly that perhaps the new owner might take another
look at the decision to comply with the certification
During this same period of time, the Respondent en
gaged in other activities discussed below , which had the
necessary effect of undercutting the Union s status as
bargaining agent Now it is building up a strike bank in
order to challenge on the picket line a union it could not
prevent from coming into the plant in the course of a
representation proceeding These actions constitute hos
tility both toward the Union and to collective bargain
ing at least at this plant The fact that the Respondent
may have concluded contracts with the same union at
other plants in no way mitigates the continuing hostility
it has displayed from the outset at Hillsdale
2 The layoffs of Bates Vroman, and Hannibal
The layoffs of Bates, Vroman, and Hannibal all took
place following the time when the Union had demon
strated its majority status as bargaining representative but
before a certification of this fact had been made by the
Board The Respondent admits that it did not bargain
with the Union over any aspect of these layoffs but as
serts that it did not have to do so The law is well settled
that when an employer acts as this one did in derogation
of a union s bargaining position it does so at its peril It
is not entitled to continue to act in a unilateral fashion as
if there were no bargaining agent when in fact there is
To permit an employer to do so would simply put a pre
mium on chewing up bargaining rights by chewing up
time The Board summed up the law on this point in
O Connor Chevrolet Buick GMC Co 209 NLRB 701 703
(1974)
The Board has long held that absent compelling
economic considerations for doing so an employer
acts at its peril in making changes in terms and con
ditions of employment during the period that objec
tions to an election are pending and the final deter
mination has not been made And where the final
determination on the objections results in the certifi
cation of a representative, the Board has held the
employer to have violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
for having made such unilateral changes Such
changes have the effect of bypassing, undercutting
and undermining the union s status as the statutory
representative of the employees in the event a certi
fication is issued To hold otherwise would allow an
employer to box the union in on future bargaining
positions by implementing changes of policy and
practice during the period when objections or de
terminative challenges to the election are pending
677
This rule has been reiterated in a variety of situations in
volving unilateral actions that have been taken during
the pendency of objections Amsterdam Printing & Litho
Corp 223 NLRB 370 (1976) It applies to layoffs that
have taken place without notice to the affected union It
requires bargaining concerning the decision to lay off an
individual or individuals and the implementation of that
decision Clements Wire & Mfg Co 257 NLRB 1058
(1981) John Cuneo Inc 257 NLRB 551 (1981) Flex
Products, 278 NLRB 417 (1986) The rule requires ade
quate notice to the Union in advance of a proposed
layoff so that the Union can formulate and present bar
gaining demands concerning the matter Sundstrand Heat
Transfer, 221 NLRB 544 (1975) Even though the layoffs
may be economically motivated as the Respondent con
tends in this case, the Respondent must still notify the
Union of contemplated action and bargain over the ques
tion Gulf States Mfrs, 261 NLRB 852 (1982) Indeed,
most positions taken in the course of collective bargain
ing by either side are economically motivated Economic
motivation can hardly be an excuse for an employer to
act unilaterally in a matter as crucial as removing certain
employees on its payroll, when this consideration does
not excuse unilateral action related to any other manda
tory subject of bargaining By leaning hard on the con
tention that these discharges were legal because they
were not discriminatorily motivated the Respondent is
trying to press the facts of this case into a mold of an
8(a)(3) discharge case, and they just do not fit Its duty
to bargain is the same regardless of its motivation
By 4 p in on March 5 1987 the UAW had become
the statutory collective bargaining representative of the
employees in the Bundy Hillsdale bargaining unit From
that moment forward it was entitled to notice and an
opportunity to bargain collectively over any layoffs or
any other changes in conditions of employment that
might be effectuated thereafter This entitlement ex
tended to the layoff of Bates which took place the fol
lowing afternoon and to the layoffs of Vroman and
Hannibal which did not take place until 2 months later
Even if the Respondent had followed its past practice in
making these layoffs-a fact that is seriously in issue-
the UAW was still entitled to negotiate whether any
layoff at all was necessary whether the employers past
standards were in fact being followed whether previous
standards were appropriate standards whether possible
alternatives of layoff were possible and a host of other
contentions might have been placed on the table had the
Union been given the opportunity to exercise the func
tion with which the law and the members of the bargain
mg unit had endowed it
The Respondent asserts that it was excused from bar
gaining because the layoffs were prompted not only by
economic considerations but by compelling economic
considerations We have yet to be told what was so com
pelting about the situations it faced on March 6 and May
15 that could not have accommodated collective bargain
ing There is nothing in the record that would support
such a contention At the time these actions occurred
the Respondent was stonewalling the Union in hopes
that it would go away It refused even to respond to
678 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Spillman's letter of May 20 relative to layoff and recall
procedures. The assertion at this time of "compelling"
economic necessity is as baseless as were the objections
that were filed in order to give its refusal to bargain a
color of legality in the first place.
A great deal of time was spent on attempting to estab-
lish or disprove a contention that the layoffs in question
were conducted in accordance with the Respondent's
past practice in layoff matters. It really does not matter
whether they were or not because, as of March 5 at 4
p.m., the Respondent was confronted with a brand new
situation; the requirement that it bargain collectively
with the UAW over the wages, hours, and terms and
conditions of employment of its Bundy-Hillsdale employ-
ees. Any allegation of a discharge in violation of Section
8(a)(5) of the Act goes to the question of how the dis-
charge was accomplished, not why it took place. It was
the past practice of the Respondent to employ Bates,
Vroman, and Hannibal. When that practice changed, or
when any matter relating to that practice changed, the
Respondent was under a duty to bargain about it if re-
quested, and part of its duty, as indicated above, was to
give the Union a meaningful opportunity to make a bar-
gaining demand.7 This the Respondent plainly did not
do. Its economic justification for these layoffs is hardly
of the compelling kind mentioned in O'Connor Chevrolet,
supra. The Respondent usually had a slowdown in the
summer months when its "big three" customers also had
slowdowns due to model changes. In 1987, a production
change in the manner of producing pushrods, called
"heat treating," actually called for additional man-hours
per unit produced. The attempt to streamline its oper-
ation and reduce inventory in conjunction with the JIT
' The evidence of the Respondent's past layoff practice in this record
demonstrates that, whenever a layoff was in the offing , it posted a notice
to this effect and solicited volunteers . If too many people volunteered, it
accepted employee requests in order of seniority . If not enough volun-
teered, then it laid off employees in order of inverse seniority. Part of its
past practice was that , on those occasions when insufficient volunteers
signed up for time off, the Respondent would go around and solicit addi-
tional signatures in order to avoid the unpleasant necessity of an involun-
tary layoff. It did none of these things on the occasions here in issue.
Gilpin , a nonunit technician, was allowed to take a voluntary layoff
under past practice . However, in March 1987 , when he volunteered for
the layoff that was given to Bates, he was not allowed to go . As a result,
Bates was involuntarily and abruptly laid off.
Respondent admits that it followed a solicitation practice when con-
fronted with a short-term layoff, i.e., 60-90 day reductions in force, but
that it did not solicit volunteers and followed strict seniority by job clas-
sification when a prospective layoff was of a longer character. There is
nothing in writing which draws such a distinction . The Respondent pro-
vided no rationale based on business judgment or necessity that would
support an inference that such distinctions were in fact followed. The
Conners-Bibbin memo establishing layoff and recall policies at Bundy-
Hillsdale, dated December 5, 1979, draws no such distinction . The only
disparate treatment suggested by this memo relates to probationary em-
ployees, a distinction that is irrelevant to the issues at hand . The provi-
sion entitled voluntary layoff policy found in the company handbook also
draws no distinction between long -term and short -term layoffs. The
handbook provision outlining the above-stated practices expressly covers
layoffs in excess of 60 days "in thirty-day blocks" as being part of the
Respondent 's layoff policy, with all the attendant preliminaries . The dis-
tinction being urged by the Respondent amounts to the setting up a cate-
gory with so many exceptions and variations that it does not amount to a
differential category with separately defined procedures. It was estab-
lished for purposes of this litigation and provides no defense based on
past practice to the Respondent's refusal to bargain with the Union on
the occasions in question.
program enabled the Respondent to eliminate some of its
supervisory overhead. The only thing different about the
1987 slowdown and previous ones was that, in addition
to receiving the regular monthly sales forecast from the
main office, the Respondent's plant management at
Bundy received another forecast from Gordon Bateman
predicting a downturn for the balance of its fiscal year,
which ended on July 31. This was not a long-range pre-
diction or one that could form the rational basis for an
indefinite layoff extending beyond 90 days. The scope of
this prediction fitted well within what the Respondent
insisted were the parameters of its standard past practice
for. short-term layoffs. There was nothing in the Re-
spondent's economic situation on either March 6 or May
15 that even remotely approximated an "emergency" sit-
uation. Accordingly, there was no basis for it to avoid its
statutory duty to bargain about these matters. Accord-
ingly, by laying off Lowell Bates, Sheila Hannibal, and
Rosemary Vroman without first notifying the Union and
bargaining collectively in good faith concerning the lay-
offs, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of
the Act.
3. Failure to negotiate the increase in job duties
associated with the JIT program
The Respondent acknowledges that it did not notify
the Union in advance that it was increasing the job
duties of its production employees in May 1987, nor did
it afford the Union an opportunity to bargain about these
changes. Respondent's defense to this allegation in the
consolidated complaint is that it did not have to bargain
about this matter because the changes in question were
de minimis . In fact , these changes were not de minimis
either to the Respondent or to its employees.
Every production operator took on a new function
that he or she did not regularly perform in the past in
securing stock and carting away production. Many of
them were not even qualified to operate the forklifts that
were necessary for the performance of these duties. They
had to learn a new function and be certified to perform
it. They also had to begin cleaning tips and doing other
adjustments on their machines that technicians formerly
performed. The time spent on these new duties varied as
to individuals and varied from day or to day but, in some
instances, could amount to as much as 2 hours' work a
day. The savings in manpower to the Respondent from
this revision of its production procedures enabled it to
discharge one or more working foremen. Far from being
de minimis, these changes were quite important and the
importance of undertaking them without providing pro-
duction employees additional pay for their additional
duties can hardly be overstated. By failing to notify the
Union in advance of these proposed changes and giving
it an opportunity to bargain about them, the Respondent
here violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
4. Institution of the Quality of Work Life program
(QWL)
As in the case of the JIT program, the Respondent
does not contend that it negotiated the institution of the
QWL program at Bundy-Hillsdale with the Union. Its
BUNDY CORP
defense in this instance to its institution of this program
is that the program was never implemented It is quite
evident from the proposed agenda for the QWL steering
committee, the facilitator, and the employee teams that
they were to deal with terms and conditions of employ
ment-he items to be sold by soft drink vending ma
chines, the condition of the parking lot, air conditioning
in the plant and many other items that are mandatory
subjects of collective bargaining It is also quite evident
that QWL was designed to deal with mandatory subjects
of collective bargaining quite apart from the normal
processes of collective bargaining as envisioned by the
Act The methodology to be employed in the QWL pro
gram was, in the language of conventional labor rela
tions, to solicit grievances from employees with a view
toward adjusting them through joint employer employee
committees To deal with such subjects apart from the
elected bargaining agent is to undermine its status and in
trude on its functions In this case, Stebelton s remarks to
the QWL training session at St Clair Shores reveal that
the Respondents motivation for introducing QWL at
Hillsdale was to counteract the effect of unionization and
quite possibly to impede the effectiveness of the Union
At Bundy, a steering committee was elected a facilita
tor was chosen, and money was expended to train both
the plant manager and the facilitator An employee team
was selected and trained This is an implementation of
the QWL program The fact that the team never got
around to addressing and resolving a specific problem in
the plant because the Union objected to the whole pro
cedure in no way detracts from the fact that the program
was put into effect The discontinuance of an unfair labor
practice is not a defense to a Board order Accordingly,
by implementing a program dealing with wages, hours,
and terms and conditions of employment in derogation of
the Union's status as collective bargaining representative
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
Act
5 Delay in furnishing the Union requested
information
The obligation under Section 8(a)(5) of the Act on the
part of an employer to supply the statutory bargaining
agent with relevant information concerning matters to be
negotiated is well and long established NLRB v Truitt
Mfg Co 351 U S 149 ( 1956) Unreasonable delay in fur
nishing such information is as much a violation of the
Act as a refusal to furnish any information at all Quality
Engineered Products Co, 267 NLRB 593 (1983), Califor
nia Nevada Golden Tours 283 NLRB 58 (1987) In this
case Spillman made a routine request for basic data con
cerning wages and benefits Most of this information was
already available at the Hillsdale plant His request was
made on October 2 The Respondent could have re
moved the requested information from a file drawer at
Hillsdale and shipped it back to Spillman by return mail
The rest could have been obtained by an interoffice tele
phone call to company headquarters in Warren, Michi
gan Most of the requested information was not supplied
until sometime in mid December, and then only after fur
ther written and oral requests had been made
679
The effect of this delay was to put the Union in a box
Spillman told Clinton that he needed the information to
formulate economic demands, and Clinton told Spillman
he wanted to have the Unions demands in advance of
the first bargaining session so he could study them By
not supplying information in a timely fashion the Com
pany prevented Spillman from presenting it with the pro
posal it said it needed to commence negotiations The
Respondent had already stalled negotiations for over 6
months by filing baseless objections It has also delayed
the commencement of negotiations by not responding in
a prompt and timely fashion to requests for a meeting
date Now it was impeding the formulation of bargaining
demands by taking over 2 months to supply the Union
with information that was readily available There was
no excuse for such procrastination and the Company of
fered no credible excuse in the record Its footdragging
in this matter was just another facet of a policy of
stonewalling that it had already been following for many
months By failing to provide the bargaining agent for its
Hillsdale plant in a timely fashion with information that
was relevant to collective bargaining , the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act
6 The Respondents defense of limitations
The Respondent contends that the Board is precluded
from inquiring into the legality of the adoption of the
JIT program and the QWL program in April and May
1987 because these events predated by more than 6
months an unfair labor practice charge that the Union
filed on November 16 1987 This contention ignores the
fact that the Union filed an 8(a)(1) and (3) charge on
June 1, 1987, stating that management has changed their
layoff procedure to discriminate against Union support
ers It also ignores a subsequent charge, filed on June
20 which reiterated this charge and further stated
AMEND Charge violation 8(a)(5) Management has re
fused to bargain on any issues See letter dated 5/20/87
In NLRB v Font Milling Co, 360 U S 301 307 308
(1959), the Supreme Court characterized the function
and scope of an unfair labor practice charge as follows
A charge filed with the Labor Board is not to be
measured by the standards applicable to a pleading
in a private law suit Its purpose is merely to set in
motion the machinery of an inquiry NLRB v I &
M Electric Co 318 U S 9 18 The responsibility of
making that inquiry and of framing the issues in the
case is one that Congress has imposed upon the
Board, not the charging party To confine the
Board in its inquiry and in framing the complaint to
the specific matters alleged in the charge would
reduce the statutory machinery to a vehicle for the
vindication of private rights This would be alien to
the basic purpose of the Act The Board was cre
ated not to adjudicate private controversies but to
advance the public interest in eliminating obstruc
tions to interstate commerce
Once its jurisdiction is invoked the Board must
be left free to make full inquiry under its broad in
vestigatory power in order properly to discharge
680 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the duty of protecting public. rights which Congress
has imposed upon it. There can be no justification
for confining such an inquiry to the precise particu-
larizations of the charge.
In this case, the Union charged on June 20 that the Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(5) by refusing to bargain
"on any issues." This phrase is certainly broad enough to
embrace any of the issues that the Respondent is charged
with in the complaint in failing to negotiate in March,
April, and May. It necessarily includes the QWL pro-
gram and the JIT job enlargement question. According-
ly, the Respondent's defense of limitations must be over-
ruled.
On these findings of fact and on the entire record con-
sidered as a whole, I make the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Bundy Corporation is now, and at all times material
has been, an employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW), is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. All full-time and regular part-time production and
maintenance employees, including shipping, receiving,
and quality control employees employed by the Re-
spondent at its Hillsdale, Michigan facility, but excluding
all technical, professional, confidential, managerial, and
office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act constitute a unit appropriate for collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act.
4. Since March 5, 1987, and. continuing to date, the
Union has been the exclusive collective-bargaining repre-
sentative within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act
for all the Respondent's employees employed in the unit
set forth in Conclusion of Law 3.
5. By failing and refusing to notify the Union in ad-
vance and to bargain collectively with the Union con-
cerning the layoffs of bargaining unit employees Lowell
Bates, Sheila Hannibal, and Rosemary Vroman; by fail-
ing and refusing to notify the Union in advance and to
bargain collectively with the Union concerning the as-
signment of additional duties to bargaining unit employ-
ees in connection with its JIT program; by instituting
and implementing a QWL program; and by failing to
supply the Union in a timely fashion with relevant infor-
mation that was requested for purposes of collective bar-
gaining , the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act.
6. By the acts and conduct set forth above in Conclu-
sion of Law 5, and by coercively interrogating and be-
rating employees concerning their union sympathies and
activities, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act.
7. The acts have a close, intimate , and substantial
effect on the free flow of commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has committed vari-
ous unfair labor practices, I will recommend that it be
required to cease and desist therefrom and to take other
actions designed to effectuate the purposes and policies
of the Act. Because the violations of the Act found
herein are repeated, pervasive, and evidence a continuing
disposition on the part of this Respondent to ignore total-
ly the rights of its employees, I will recommend to the
Board a so-called broad 8(a)(1) remedy which is de-
signed to suppress any and all violations of that section
of the Act. Hickmott Foods, 242 NLRB 1357. I will rec-
ommend to the Board that the Respondent be required
to bargain collectively in good faith with the Union as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its
Hillsdale employees. Because it failed to do so in this
case, I will recommend a standard remedy in unilateral
change cases, namely, that the Respondent restore the
status quo. This will include the elimination of additional
job duties that were assigned to unit employees without
prior bargaining and the discontinuance of the QWL
program. Because bargaining in good faith over the three
discharges at issue could well have brought about an-
other result and because the record in this case is perme-
ated with antiunion animus on the part of the Respond-
ent, I will recommend to the Board a standard reinstate-
ment and make-whole remedy usually used in discrimina-
tory discharge cases, namely, offers of reinstatement to
former or substantially equivalent positions, without prej-
udice to loss of seniority or to other benefits previously
enjoyed, and backpay and payment for any loss of bene-
fits, computed in accordance with the formula set forth
in the Woolworth case8 with interest thereon at the short-
term Federal rate used to compute interest on underpay-
ments and overpayments of Federal income taxes under
the Tax Reform Act of 1986. New Horizons for the Re-
tarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). The General Counsel has
required a so-called visitatorial clause permitting the use
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for discovery in
the event a contempt proceeding arises out of this case. I
regard such a clause as a necessary adjunct to enforce-
ment in this matter and will grant that request. Cherokee
Marine Terminal, 287 NLRB 1080 (1988). I will also rec-
ommend that the Respondent be required to post the
usual notice, advising its employees of their rights and of
the results in this case.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed9
ORDER
The Respondent, Bundy Corporation, Hillsdale, Michi-
gan, its officers, agents, supervisors, successors, and as-
signs, shall
8 F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950).
9 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.
BUNDY CORP
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Coercively interrogating and berating employees
concerning their union sympathies and union activities
(b) Refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with
the International Union United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW) as the exclusive collective bargaining representa
tive of its production and maintenance employees em
ployed in the Hillsdale, Michigap bargaining unit
(c) Unilaterally changing wages, hours, or terms and
conditions of bargaining unit employees without notify
ing the Union and affording it an opportunity to bargain
over such changes
(d) Instituting a Quality of Work Life program or any
other similar programs or practices designed to consider
and resolve matters affecting wages, hours, and terms
and conditions of employment by directly soliciting
grievances from employees and bypassing the Union in
considering and resolving such grievances
(e) Laying off discharging, or otherwise affecting the
hire or tenure of bargaining unit employees without noti
fying the Union and affording it an opportunity to bar
gain over such changes
(f) Failing to furnish the Union in a timely fashion
with relevant information that it requested for purposes
of collective bargaining
(g) By any other means or in any other manner inter
fering with, restraining or coercing employees in the ex
excise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act
2 Take the following affirmative actions necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Offer to Lowell Bates Sheila Hannibal and Rose
mary Vroman full and immediate reinstatement to their
former or substantially equivalent employment without
prejudice to their seniority or to other rights previously
enjoyed, and make them whole for any loss of pay or
benefits that they may have suffered by reason of the un
lawful conduct found in the manner described above in
the remedy section of this decision
(b) On request bargain collectively in good faith with
the Union as the exclusive collective bargaining repre
sentative of its Hillsdale Michigan employees
(c) Eliminate from the job duties of bargaining unit
employees employed by the Respondent at its Hillsdale
Michigan plant any additional duties that were unilater
ally assigned to them since the Union became their bar
gaining representative
(d) On request furnish the Union in a timely fashion
with any information that is relevant for purposes of col
lective bargaining
(e) Post at the Respondents Hillsdale Michigan plant
copies of the attached notice marked Appendix 10
Copies of said notice on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 7 shall be posted immediately upon
receipt and maintained by the Respondent for 60 consec
utive days in conspicuous places, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted Rea
10 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
at 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
681
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that said 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 For the purpose of deter
mining or securing compliance with this Order the
Board or any of its duly authorized representatives may
obtain discovery from the Respondent, its officers
agents, successors, or assigns, or from any other person
having knowledge concerning any compliance matter, in
the manner provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Pro
cedure Such discovery shall be conducted under the su
pervision of the United States court of appeals enforcing
this Order and may be had upon any matter reasonably
related to compliance with this Order as enforced by the
court
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
WE WILL NOT coercively interrogate or berate em
ployees concerning their union sympathies and union ac
tivities
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively in good
faith with the International Union United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW) as the exclusive collective bargaining
representative of the production and maintenance em
ployees employed inthe Hillsdale Michigan bargaining
unit
WE WILL NOT unilaterally change wages hours or
terms and conditions of employment of bargaining unit
employees without notifying the Union and affording it
an opportunity to bargain over such changes
WE WILL NOT institute a Quality of Life program or
any other similar programs or practices designed to con
sider and resolve matters affecting wages hours and
terms and conditions of employment by directly solicit
ing grievances from employees and bypassing the Union
in considering and resolving such grievance
WE WILL NOT lay off discharge or otherwise affect
the hire or tenure of bargaining unit employees without
notifying the Union and affording it an opportunity to
bargain over such changes
WE WILL NOT fail to furnish the Union in a timely
fashion with relevant information that it requested for
purposes of collective bargaining
WE WILL NOT by any other means or in any other
manner interfere with restrain or coerce employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of
the Act
WE WILL offer to Lowell Bates Sheila Hannibal and
Rosemary Vroman full and immediate reinstatement to
682 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their former or substantially equivalent employment,
without prejudice to their seniority or to other rights
previously enjoyed , and WE WILL make them whole for
any loss of pay or benefits that they may have suffered
by reason of the unlawful conduct -found by the Board,
with interest.
WE WILL , on request , bargain collectively in good
faith with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargain-
ing representative of its Hillsdale, Michigan employees.
WE WILL eliminate from the job duties of bargaining
unit employees any additional duties that were unilateral-
ly assigned to them since the Union became their bar-
gaining representative.
WE WILL , on request , furnish the Union in a timely
fashion with any information that is relevant for purposes
of collective bargaining.
BUNDY CORPORATION