Davol, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 14, 1978

237 N.L.R.B. 431 (N.L.R.B. 1978)

DAVOL. INC.
Davol, Inc. and United Rubber, Cork, Linolcumn and
Plastic Workers of America, Iocal 911. AFL-CIO.
Cases I CA-13198 and I CA 13654
August 14. 1978
DECISION AND ORI)ER
BY MEMBFRS PI NILI.(). Ml RPII. ANI) TRI I tSl)\1
On February 16. 1978. Administrative Law Judge
Leonard M. Wagman issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter. Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, and the General ('oun-
sel filed a copy of its brief previously submitted to
the Administrative Law Judge in support of the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge's Decision and in opposition
to Respondent's exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended,. the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs
and has decided to affirm the rulings. findings.' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and
to adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Re-
lations Board adopts as its Order the recommended
Order of the Administrative Law Judge and herebh
orders that the Respondent. Davol, Inc.. Cranston
and Providence, Rhode Island. its officers. agents.
successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth
in the said recommended Order.
Respondent has excepted to certain credlhldis findines made h\ the
'Administrative L.aw Judge It is he Board' estabhlished policsN nol ts ,er-
rule an Administratise i.a, Judge', re' lumntil, ith respect t., credlbiilit
unless the clear preponderance of all of the relertant esldence conI llue us
that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard 1)rI Itl/' Pr-di.,s. Inr. 91
NLiRB 544 (1950, enfd 188 F 2d 362 C A 3 1951 i Ne ha.e catefidul
examined the record and find not hais for reersilln his findini?
: In its exceptions. Respondent argues that the B-ard should defer tunder
Spielherg Manuufacturing ( nlpain'. 112 Ni RB It)8i) 1955). to anl April s
1976. arbitration asvard 'ilth respect to the allegation In the compla.in thril
it refused to furnish cost- comparison data regardlng the Shc 'ntrlltri.C1v of
maintenance work at its ( ranstin plant Althonugh the arbltritor affilrri
tively ftound that Respondent'i suhtontractlrg of iialitenan.ne sorik pro
duced sufficient economic sasings to he permilslble under the tcirni of the
collective-hargaining agreement. he referred to Respondent' failure to pro-
vide costl-comparison data onls In the course of reciting his factu al find ins.
in which he stated thal Respondent had indicated It rlitentiorn 't prs;ide
such information toI him. hut had not done s. IhusL the arbltrator dea.t
onl tangeniialls rith theunfair lahorpr.ictile is.tue i the Int.tntc.ec I tilthr.
n no event is deferral ippropriarte r th respec I t rthe relucsit here , hich xtcr
made subsequent to the issuance of the a.rblilitl.oll , ard. lld sc t 1. h
deftinition not possible to pass upon the propridNs .f requests madi c .iit hi , t.
tilld snte the arbitrator did not purport to retain llriLdlictl on See I h Ar,-
iet ( ripat 226 Ni RB S12. 51 . fn h t I't ) ht-\ rt \ l ' I r i the Xpri
19'h. .rhitrati on av'ard dtoes not resols.e Ihe allfllr .ih r L tiiZ .hl,_h Ith
Board I, called upon to decide herein. we oll[IuiJc tail.t thtis -_ac is 'nt i
proper ,ne for deferrall under Ihe .SÂ¥prlhCr' d liri11C I luithciTilc. i hIe
t non's entillemenl to the information sought. hlh h1ad iilt prch iii.dl
heen supplied. i, nol dependent on ihe mnerits of he econlifd iies.rtnec
In his ( onclusion of I a' 5. the .A
5
dminislr.atie I.IAu Judge it. tddertcnti!
stated that Respondent refused, (in and rfter April 7. 197- tt prt, Ide the
tUnion with informtallon regarding its productlun suboitnlracting produ ct
eliminaton, and the possible phasing out of Its Pr osidence pla.nl i iueser,
the record sh. s. anld the Administrait e I 'u Judge foun rd . rhicr i1 hl,
)ecision. th;t Respondent has refused Io priovide ti.h reqluested 1info rnl.l-
lion since on and iafer NIas 6. 1977
DECISION
SIATLMENT OF THE CASE
LIONx-RI) M W( A AN. Administrative Law Judge: These
cases were heard before me at Boston, Massachusetts, on
October 28 and December 14, 1977. upon a complaint is-
sued by the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board on July 15. 1977, in Case I CA-13198, which
upon motion was consolidated in an amended complaint
with C'ase I CA 13654. The amended complaint alleged,
and Respondent Davol. Inc.., denied, violating Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by
failing or refusing to furnish information requested by
United Rubber, Cork. Linoleum and Plastic Workers of
America, Local 911. AFL CIO. referred to below as the
Union, to enable the Union to carry out its duties as collec-
tive-bargaining representative of a unit of Respondent's
employees. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, and
having observed the testimony and demeanor of the only
witness, I called, I hereby make the following:
FINDINiS ()F Fn( t
I (()MMIR(:I JI RISDICTION. AND LIABOR ORGANIZATION
INVOLVED)
It is undisputed that Respondent, a Delaware corpora-
tion, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution
of medical, surgical, and hospital supplies and related
products, and that its principal office and two plants are
located in the State of Rhode Island. In the course of its
business operations, Respondent annually ships products
valued in excess of $50,000 from its Rhode Island plants
directly to points outside the State. From this commerce
data, I find that Respondent is an emplover engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2). (6). and (7)
of the Act.
Respondent also admits, as alleged in the amended com-
plaint, and I find. that Lnited Rubber. Cork. Linoleum
and Plastic Workers of America. Local 911. AFL CIO. is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
I here u e rn,, I\' l e f redlbhilit ple nlted ln Ihese csie,
237 NLRB No. 59
431
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts
1. The Union's request for cost comparison data
Since September 1970, Respondent has recognized and
dealt with the Union as the collective-bargaining represen-
tative of the production and maintenance employees, em-
ployed at Respondent's Providence and Cranston, Rhode
Island, plants.
On December 20, 1971, the Union filed grievance 31753
against Respondent, alleging violation of article I, section
1, and article X, section 6(c), of their then current 3-year
collective-bargaining agreement, which was effective on
September 14, 1970. Specifically the Union's grievance al-
leged, as follows:
The company has violated the contract by allowing
nonbargaining unit employees to clean and maintain
the Cranston plant. The union firmly requests all af-
fected employees be made whole.
The portions of the contract invoked by the grievance read
as follows:
ARTICLE I
Recognition and Union Security
(a) The Company recognizes the Union as the ex-
clusive bargaining agency for all production and
maintenance employees, excluding laboratory techni-
cians, quality control employees, office clerical em-
ployees, guards, professional employees, and supervis-
ors as defined by the National Labor Relations Act.
(b) The Company agrees to recognize the Union as
the exclusive collective bargaining representative at
the Company's new facility in Cranston, Rhode Is-
land. The Company and the Union mutually agree to
initially staff the new facility by a procedure whereby'
the jobs will be posted and the most senior applicant
will be given the first opportunity at a 30-day trial
period for the job in question. The people presently,
employed in the Providence Plant in any department
transferred to the Cranston Plant will be given first
priority. If all jobs in the new facility are not filled
from applicants in those departments, employees in all
the other Departments will be given an opportunity to
bid on the new job before the Company employs any
new personnel to fill the vacancies.
ARTICLE X
General Provisions
* ' * * *
2 The unit, as described in the complaint is:
All production and maintenance emploNees at the Respondent's
plants at 69 Point Street, Providence, Rhode Island. and at Sockianosset
Crossroads, Cranston, Rhode Island, excluding laborator' technicians.
quality control employees, office clerical employees. guards. chaul-
feurs, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in Sectrin
2(11) of the Act.
Section 6 -Miscellaneous Provisions
* *
(c) It is agreed that every effort shall be made to
schedule maintenance work for the Maintenance De-
partment of the plant if such department is equipped
and employees are qualified by experience and skill to
perform such work within the allotted time. However,
it is agreed that the Company has the right to subcon-
tract work whenever it cannot be done by its employ-
ees within the bargaining unit due to lack of equip-
ment, skill, urgency of work and economic
considerations.
The "nonbargaining unit employees" referred to in
grievance 31753 were the employees of the Boston Clean-
ing Company, a contractor, whose employees, the Union
claimed, were performing unit janitorial work at the then
new Cranston plant. Respondent denied the grievance.
Thereafter, an arbitrator determined that the grievance
lacked merit. In his written findings, the arbitrator assert-
ed: "The Company indicated its intent to provide a cost
comparison which led to its decision to contract out the
cleaning work, but such data was not supplied to the Arbi-
trator." Nevertheless, in his award, dated April 5, 1976, the
arbitrator found that use of Boston Cleaning Company
employees to clean and maintain the Cranston plant did
not violate the collective-bargaining agreement. In reach-
ing this conclusion the arbitrator assessed the evidence be-
fore him as follows:
The evidence presented by the Company at the hear-
ing shows that it lacked the equipment, and storage
facilities therefore. to carry on the full range of clean-
ing duties covered by the contractor. It also shows that
there was a sizeable [sic] economic saving enjoyed by
the Company as a result of having this work done by
the contractor, rather than by its own bargaining unit
employees. The Union, as the moving party in this
case, has the burden of showing that the subcontract-
ing in this case was not authorized by the terms of
Article X, Section 6(c). We do not feel that it has met
that burden in light of the substantially uncontra-
dicted evidence on equipment and economic savings
presented by the Company.
Meanwhile, in March 1974, the Union filed a second
grievance, grievance 1554, alleging violation of article X,
section 6(c), of its 1974 collective-bargaining agreement
with Respondent, which contained the same language
quoted above. The Union complained of the use of "out-
side cleaners to perform janitorial duties on all shifts in the
Cranston plant." Respondent denied the grievance at step
I as follows:
The Company denies Grievance 1554 and contends
that the Company retains the right to manage the
business and to direct the work force.
At step 3, dated June 10, 1974, Respondent answered:
The Company denies violating the Agreement. In fact
the work being done by an outside cleaning company
432
DAVOL. INC.
has been done since December 1970. This grievance is
denied.
Thereafter, the matter was scheduled for hearing before an
arbitrator on June 7, 1977.
On May 31. 1977, Union President Roger Williams. in
an effort to evaluate the pending grievance, asked Respon-
dent's industrial relations manager, Edward KelleN for
cost-comparison data covering the janitorial work at the
Cranston plant. Kelley replied that he would check with
David W. Oskin, Respondent's employee relations manag-
er, and obtain an answer for Williams. Later that day, Kel-
ley reported to Williams that Respondent would not pro-
vide the requested information, adding that Respondent's
position was that the grievance had been resolved by the
arbitrator's award. Faced with Respondent's refusal to pro-
vide the requested cost-comparison data. Union President
Williams obtained a postponment of the arbitration pro-
ceeding on the ground that the Union could not "evaluate
the grievance."
By letter of June 1, to Edward Kelley. Williams renewed
the Union's request for cost-comparison data. asking for a
response if Respondent had a change of heart. Respondent
did not answer.
At a meeting between Respondent and union representa-
tives on September 30, 1977. the Union again sought the
cost-comparison information regarding the Boston Clean-
ing Company's operations at Respondent's Cranston plant.
To date, Respondent has not provided the Union with the
requested data.
2. The Union's request for information regarding
subcontracting of production
In August 1975, at a discussion regarding negotiations of
the 1976 contract. Respondent's president raised the possi-
bility that the Providence plant would be phased out. Also.
in February 1976, Union President Williams received word
from an unidentified source that Respondent was subcon-
tracting production work from its Providence and Cran-
ston plants. On February 19. 1976, the Union sent the fol-
lowing letter to Respondent:
It has just been brought to my attention that Indus-
trial Packing in Natick, Rhode Island. are processing
plastic catheters for Davol. I have checked this out
and find it to be true.
Will you please furnish me with the following infor-
mation so we may administer the present agreement
and carry out our responsibilities under the grievance
proceedure [sic].
(I) What type of work are they doing?
(2) How much work is Davol sub-contracting to In-
dustrial Packing?
(3) Why is this work not being done in Davol?
(4) Is any of the work they do returned to Davol for
us to finish? If so, why?
(5) What is the dollar amount?
(6) Is there a contract? If so, how long is it for?
Respondent did not answer.
After February 1976, the Union discerned a loss of unit
employees at the Providence plant. The Union attributed
this reduction to the discontinuance of products. One of
the Union's concerns was that laid off unit employees
would exhaust their recall rights under the 1974 contract.
Article VIII, section 2(E). of that contract stated in perti-
nent part:
ARII( VIIIl
SENR IOR I'T1
* * * *
Section 2 Loss of Seniority
Continuous service and seniority shall be terminat-
ed when an employee:
(E} Has been absent from work due to layoff, non-
occupational illness or disability for a period equal to
the employee's prior continuous service for seniority
purposes, but not more than five (5) years....
The Union also pondered the application of the 1974
contract's severance pay provisions set out in Article XII,
and particularly its opening paragraph which declared:
ARFICL.F Xli
S1\ FRAN(F P5a
In the event the Company closes its operations (Plant
or Plants) or discontinues permanently a division or
major portion of a Plant, each employee with one or
more years of service whose employment shall be ter-
minated by the Company as a direct result thereof
shall be entitled to a severance pay allowance equal to
one (I ) percent of earnings, as defined below for each
year of employment during an employee's period of
continuous employment with the Company.
In the course of the 1976 contract negotiations which
followed its February 19 letter, the Union orally repeated
its request for subcontract information. Employee Rela-
tions Director Oskin told Union President Williams that he
would "look at" the Union's request. Respondent gave no
response.
Williams waited until April 7, 1977, to send a letter to
Oskin renewing the February 1976 request for information.
Williams sent a second letter to Oskin. dated April 7, 1977,
stating:
The following information in regards to sub-contract-
ing and the company eliminating products, is being
requested so as to allow the Union to evaluate any
possible violation under our collective-bargaining
agreement.
Please furnish me with products. if any, the company
is sub-contracting and the name of the company. Also
any products the company has completely eliminated
and dropped.
Your earliest reply will be greatly appreciated.
President Williams requested the additional information to
assess the extent of the phasing out of the Providence plant
and the effect of that development upon employee recall
and severance pay rights under the contract.
433
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In a letter dated May 6, 1977, David W. Oskin gave the
Respondent's response to the Union's three letters:
I have received two letters from you dated April 7,
1977, regarding subcontracting. In the letters, you re-
quest that you be furnished information on the sub-
contracting of production work.
A similar request was made in correspondence dated
February 19, 1976 and I will remind you that I did
answer this correspondence in negotiations that took
place in 1976.
As you know, the Company has consistently main-
tained its right to subcontract production work and
since the requested information does not relate to any
provision of the labor agreement, I do not intend to
provide it.
At a meeting on September 30, 1977. Respondent again
rejected a Union request for production and subcontract-
ing information on the ground that the collective-bargain-
ing agreement contained no clause pertaining to subcon-
tracting and production work.
In a final, vain attempt, the Union. by letter, dated Octo-
ber 26. 1977, requested the following information:
[S]o the union could make a determination weather
[sic] employees who have been laid off and who's [sic]
recall rights have been exhausted since September of
1975 are entitled to severance pay under Article 12 of
the collective-bargaining agreement:
1) What products have been eliminated from the
Providence plant and what division they are from?
2) The nature and extent of products that have
been sub-contracted from the Providence plant.
3) The extent to which the sub-contracting and eli-
mination of products has on the plan to faze [sic] out
the Providence plant.
4) All other written documentation you have relat-
ing to the Providence faze [sic] out including transfer
of latex to other plants.
5) What is the date the Providence plant will be
fazed [sic] out?
111. ANALYSIS AND CON( CL SIONS
The duty to bargain imposed under Section 8(a)(5) of the
Act does not terminate with the execution of a collective-
bargaining agreement, but encompasses the duty to confer
with respect to "labor-management relations during the
term of an agreement." N.L.R.B. v. Acme Industrial ( o.,
385 U.S. 432, 436 (1967). Were any confirmation of this
principle required, it is explicitly provided by Section 8(d)
of the Act which defines the duty to bargain imposed by'
Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. The definition of Section 8(d)
expressly includes not only the duty to "confer in good
faith with respect to . . . the negotiations of an agree-
ment," but also the duty to confer subsequently' with re-
spect to "any question arising thereunder."
Among the problems of vital concern to a collective-
bargaining representative, both during contract negotia-
tions and during the life of a contract, is the preservation of
unit work. Rockwell-Standard Corporation, Transmission
and Axle Division, Forge Division 166 NLRB 124, 132
(1967), enfd. 410 F.2d 953 (C.A. 6, 1969). Indeed, the pres-
ervation of unit work is a mandatory subject of bargaining
under the Act. Fibrehoard Paper Products Corp. v.
N.L.R.B., 379 U.S. 203, 215 (1964). Accordingly, the duty
to bargain about unit work includes the duty to furnish
relevant information necessary to enable the collective-bar-
gaining representative either before or after a contract is
concluded---to discharge its function intelligently and ef-
fectively. N'.L.R.B. v. Acme Industrial Co., supra; Rockwell
Standard Corporation, supra at 132.
Here the Union, as collective-bargaining agent, was le-
gitimately concerned that the Company's employment of a
subcontractor to perform janitorial work was depriving
unit employees of work in violation of article X, section 6;
quoted above. That provision and the arbitrator's award
cite economic considerations as justification for such sub-
contracting. Thus, the cost-comparison data sought by the
Union was relevant to the Union's pending grievance over
the subcontracting of janitorial work which would other-
wise be performed by unit employees. See A. O. Smith
Corporation, 223 NLRB 838, 841 (1976). For with the re-
quested data the Union intended to evaluate its grievance
before undergoing a second arbitration proceeding.
Respondent contends that the Act permitted its refusal
to provide the requested cost comparison data because the
1976 arbitration award deprived the Union's current griev-
ance of arbitrability. In support of this argument, Respon-
dent relies upon the Board's decision in Hercules Motor
Corporation. 136 NILRB 1648 (1962). However, I am satis-
fied that the peculiar facts of that case deprive it of prece-
dential value here. In that case, which involved a union's
request for wage data, the Board concluded that the em-
ployer had not violated the Act by refusing to furnish the
requested information. The union in that case, sought the
wage data with respect to a pending grievance. The em-
ployer declined to furnish the data on the ground that the
subject matter of the grievance was not grievable under the
collective-bargaining agreement. In The Timken Roller
Bearing Companyr 138 NLRB 15, 16, fn. 4 (1962), the Board
explained that the "basic issue" in Hercules "was not one
concerning the production of wage data, but rather one of
contract interpretation, i.e., whether the matter in dispute
was arbitrable, and this question . . . was for the arbitra-
tor," In Hercules, supra 136 NLRB at 1652, the Board also
pointed out that that case did not present a situation
"where a union simply sought, and was denied, informa-
tion which was relevant to its task as bargaining agent in
negotiating a contract, or policing or administering a con-
tract, or adjusting a grievance." However, in the instant
case, the facts show the Union seeking data for purposes
not found in Hercules. Here, the Union was requesting
cost-comparison data to evaluate a pending grievance filed
in a continuing effort to police or administer a collective-
bargaining agreement. Under settled principles, the Re-
spondent's refusal to provide the requested information on
and after May 31, 1977, was violative of Section 8(a)(5)
and (I) of the Act. N.. IR.B. v. Acme Industrial Co., supra at
437 439.
The General Counsel also alleged that by refusing to
honor the Union's request for information regarding the
434
DAVOI., INC.
Providence plant's operations, Respondent also violated
Section 8(aH)5) and (1) of the Act. Respondent argues that
the absence of any contractual prohibition of its subcon-
tracting of production work renders this requested infor-
mation irrelevant to the Union's bargaining duties. How-
ever, from my reading of the 1974 and 1976 contracts, the
data requested by the Union pertained to contractual pro-
visions covering severance pa) eligibility and the exhaus-
tion of reinstatement rights of employees laid off because
of apparent phasing out of the Providence plant. Thus. I
find that, as the Union insisted, the requested information
was relevant to the policing of the contract. I therefore
find, that in this instance by its refusal to provide the re-
quested information, on and after May 6. 1977. Respon-
dent again violated Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act.
IV 1II RiMl')5
Having found that the Respondent engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be re-
quired to cease and desist therefrom and take affirmative
action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. in-
cluding action to make available the cost-comparison data
and the subcontracting and production data sought by the
Union (as set forth in part II of this Decision), which data
is relevant and necessary to the Union's obligation to rep-
resent Respondent's employees in the appropriate unit.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon
the entire record in this case. I make the following:
CONCI. SIONS OF LA^
I. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2). (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The unit appropriate for collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act, consists of all pro-
duction and maintenance employees at Respondent's Prov-
idence and Cranston, Rhode Island, plants, excluding lab-
oratory technicians, quality control employees, office
clerical employees, guards, chauffeurs, professional em-
ployees and supervisors as defined in Section 2(1 I) of the
Act.
4. At all times material herein, the Union has been and
continues to be the exclusive representative of the employ-
ees in said appropriate unit for purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
By refusing on and after May 31. 1977. to provide the
Union with cost-comparison information regarding the
subcontracting of janitorial services at the Cranston plant
and by refusing on and after April 7. 1977, to provide the
Union with information relating to Respondent's produc-
tion subcontracting, product elimination, and the possible
phasing out of its Providence plant. Respondent has en-
gaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices affect-
ing commerce within the meaning of Sections 8(a)(S) and
(I) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Upon the foregoing find-
ings of fact, conclusions of law and in the entire record and
pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Act, I herebs issue the
following recommended:
ORDER
The Respondent. Davol Inc.. its officers, agents. succes-
sors. and assigns, shall:
I. ('ease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with respect to rates
of pay, wages. hours of employment, and other terms and
conditions of employment with United Rubber, Cork. Li-
noleum and Plastic Workers of America, Local 911, AFL
C10. as the exclusive bargaining representative of its em-
ployees in the appropriate bargaining unit described in
paragraph 3 of the Conclusions of Lawk section of this De-
cision bh refusing or failing to furnish the Union or its
agents. upon request, with data concerning cost compari-
son of subcontracting janitorial work at the Cranston plant
and information regarding products which Respondent has
eliminated, products which have been subcontracted to
other employers. and the possible future phase out plans
for Respondent's Providence facility upon request, or other
relevant data and information necessary to the administra-
tion of its collective-bargaining agreement with the Union.
(b) In an'! like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed to them bs Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request furnish or make available to the ap-
propriate agent of the Union the information described in
paragraph l(a) above.
b(h) Post at its Cranston and Providence, Rhode Island.
plants. copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 4
Copies of said notice. on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 1. after being duly signed by Respon-
dent's authorized representative. shall be posted by Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be main-
tained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter. in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
he taken by Respondent to insure said notices are not al-
tered. defaced. or covered by anN' other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 1, in writing
within 20 davs from the date of this Order, what steps Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
In the eent no exceptilon are filed a. prosided bs Sec 10246 of the
Ruile and Re[ulalnm .n f the N.ational I ahor Relaton,ns Board the findings.
onlusli, ,, lnd re, n iclended Order herein shall as prmosided in Sec
102 48 of the Rule, anid Reeula.tions. he adopted bN the Board and hecome
it, fndinlgy . ciTnchllon1 and Order. aid a11 ohbjetions thereto shall he
deei aed . i, ed for Lill purps}e
In the e,,eni that Ihis Order is enfored hI .a ludgmcntnL f .1 I aied
Sl.te, ( ourt I \.ppea . Ihe s ordl in thie niince reading "Posied Ih Order
'if the NitllO.ll I .ahor Rclaroni, HBoird" l hall read "Posted Pursuant to a
h.IdInIcIit .f thc tilt i SLttci (I I Lrt If . rppcall t nforclng an Order of the
N.,llo l I :i hr R tlio B oi hi r id"
435
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF ITHE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to furnish or make available to
United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers
of America, Local 911, AFL-CIO, relevant data and
information necessary to the policing and administra-
tion of our contract with the Union or to the adjust-
ment of a grievance by the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
DAVOL. INC
436