Day & Zimmerman Services

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1998

325 N.L.R.B. 1046 (N.L.R.B. 1998)

1046
325 NLRB No. 195
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 All dates are in 1997, unless stated otherwise.
2 Prior to the issuance of the second amended consolidated com-
plaint, the General Counsel had issued a complaint on June 26, a
consolidated complaint on July 29, and a first amended consolidated
complaint on September 22.
3 The second amended consolidated complaint alleges that the Re-
spondent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) by insisting on a nonmanda-
tory subject of bargaining as a condition of reaching an agreement,
refusing to furnish the Union with requested information, bypassing
the Union and dealing directly with the unit employees, failing to
advise the Union of an impending health insurance premium rate in-
crease, making unilateral changes in health insurance premiums, and
promulgating and enforcing a rule prohibiting display of union insig-
nia and stickers on lockers and hard hats.
4 In its response to the Board’s Notice to Show Cause, the Re-
spondent’s consultant argues, inter alia, that he did not receive ‘‘at
least two certified transmittals’’ from the Board. There is no ques-
tion, however, that the Respondent itself received all relevant docu-
ments. As set forth below, under the circumstances of this case the
alleged failure of the Respondent’s consultant to receive two docu-
ments does not constitute good cause for failing to timely answer the
second amended consolidated complaint.
5 The consultant’s father was hospitalized with pneumonia from
June to mid-October.
6 The Respondent’s consultant asserts that he submitted a change
of address form to the U.S. Post Office and requested that the local
post office hold his mail for personal pickup until the change of ad-
dress became effective. Nevertheless, the Respondent’s consultant
claims that his mail was temporarily misdirected during his stay at
his father’s residence, and that based on information received from
the General Counsel, at least two certified documents addressed to
him were returned to the Board as undelivered.
7 See Jones Pallet Recycle & Mfg., 288 NLRB 279 (1988), enfd.
888 F.2d 129 (7th Cir. 1989) (knowledge of a Motion for Summary
Judgment was imputed to the respondent’s counsel where there was
timely and effective service of the motion on the respondent itself).
Day & Zimmerman Services, a Division of Day &
Zimmerman, Inc. and International Brother-
hood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders,
Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers, AFL–CIO,
CLC. Cases 31–CA–22601, 31–CA–22631, 31–
CA–22694, and 31–CA–22844
June 30, 1998
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND BRAME
Upon charges and an amended charge filed by the
Union on April 2 and 15, May 13, July 23, and Sep-
tember 19, 1997,1 the General Counsel of the National
Labor Relations Board issued a second amended con-
solidated complaint on October 29,2 against the Re-
spondent, Day & Zimmerman Services, a Division of
Day & Zimmerman, Inc., alleging that it violated Sec-
tion 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations
Act.3 The Respondent was properly served the charges,
the amended charge, and the second amended consoli-
dated complaint.4
On November 21, the General Counsel filed a Mo-
tion for Summary Judgment with the Board. On No-
vember 25, the Board issued an order transferring the
proceeding to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause
why the motion should not be granted. The Respond-
ent filed a response to the Notice to Show Cause, a
Motion for Extension of Time to File and a Motion to
Remand Consolidated Cases. The General Counsel
filed an opposition to the Respondent’s response, and
the Charging Party filed a reply to the Respondent’s
response.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
Sections 102.20 and 102.21 of the Board’s Rules
and Regulations provide that the allegations in the
complaint shall be deemed admitted if an answer is not
filed within 14 days from the service of the complaint,
unless good cause is shown. In addition, the second
amended consolidated complaint states that unless an
answer is filed within 14 days of service, ‘‘all of the
allegations in the Second Amended Consolidated Com-
plaint shall be deemed to be admitted to be true and
shall be so found by the Board.’’
The Respondent’s consultant contends that his fail-
ure to answer the complaints was for good cause be-
cause of the critical and near fatal illness of his fa-
ther,5 and the failure of the consultant to receive ‘‘at
least two certified transmittals’’ from the Board.6 The
Respondent’s consultant maintains that between mid-
October and mid-November, after his father’s release
from the hospital, he provided over 10 hours of care
per day to his father, and that the erratic schedule lim-
ited him in his ability to communicate with the Re-
spondent and prohibited him from fully preparing the
required responses. The Respondent’s consultant re-
quests that summary judgment be denied and that the
Respondent be allowed an additional week thereafter
to file an answer.
For the reasons set forth below, we find that the Re-
spondent has failed to establish good cause for the fail-
ure to file a timely answer. First, service of the com-
plaints conformed with Section 102.113(e) of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, and significantly, there
is no question that the Respondent itself was served
with and received all four complaints. Knowledge of
the complaints may be imputed to the Respondent’s
consultant.7 Despite the Respondent’s consultant’s al-
leged limited communication with the Respondent, he
does not claim that he was not aware of the complaints
or that he did not communicate with the Respondent
concerning the complaints.
Second, the General Counsel has attached to his Op-
position to the Respondent’s Purported Showing of
Good Cause and his Motion for Summary Judgment
copies of affidavits of service on the Respondent’s
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:35 May 01, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 01046 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\325.154 APPS10 PsN: APPS10
1047DAY & ZIMMERMAN SERVICES
8 United States Service Industries, 324 NLRB No. 132 (Oct. 24,
1997).
9 The General Counsel concedes that the Respondent’s consultant
‘‘apparently did not receive the First or the Second Amended Con-
solidated Complaint.’’ Attached to the General Counsel’s Opposition
to Respondent’s Purported Showing of Good Cause is a copy of a
return receipt for the first and second amended consolidated com-
plaints dated November 28, 1997, and signed by the Respondent’s
consultant. On that card is the notation ‘‘3rd Issuance.’’ This was
apparently sent to the Respondent’s consultant after the General
Counsel became aware of the alleged failure of the Respondent’s
consultant to receive the first and second amended consolidated
complaints at the time of issuance.
10 Ancorp National Services, 202 NLRB 513 (1973), enfd. mem.
502 F.2d 1159 (1st Cir. 1973) (good cause not found where respond-
ent’s vice president in charge of labor relations was out of the office
due to illness and the complaint was inadvertently filed away. No
timely request for extension of time to answer was made).
11 Nor is there evidence that the Respondent’s consultant informed
the General Counsel that he changed his address during that time pe-
riod.
12 We note that the first three complaints were issued while the
consultant’s father was in the hospital, a period of time during which
the consultant does not claim he was needed for his father’s constant
care. Although the Charging Party claims in its reply that the con-
sultant spent substantial time participating in contract negotiations on
behalf of the Respondent in September through November, because
these claims are unsubstantiated, we do not rely on them to support
our finding that good cause has not been established.
13 Having granted the Motion for Summary Judgment, we deny
both the Respondent’s Motion for Extension of Time to File and
Motion to Remand Consolidated Cases to the Regional Director for
appropriate proceedings.
consultant for all four complaints. Those affidavits cer-
tify that Board agents served the documents on the Re-
spondent’s consultant ‘‘by postpaid certified mail.’’
The affidavits are signed and sworn to, and there is no
evidence disputing their authenticity. Under Board
precedent, these affidavits are sufficient by themselves
to establish service of the complaints on the Respond-
ent’s consultant.8
Third, there is proof that the Respondent’s consult-
ant received the original complaint and the consoli-
dated complaint.9 Nevertheless, the Respondent’s con-
sultant did not file an answer to any of the complaints
(even those he does not dispute having received). Nor
did he respond to the General Counsel’s November 6
letter which notified the Respondent that unless an an-
swer to the second amended consolidated complaint
was received by November 12, the General Counsel
would seek summary judgment from the Board.
A failure to promptly request an extension of time
to file an answer is a factor demonstrating lack of
good cause.10 Here, although aware that at least two
complaints had issued, the Respondent’s consultant
failed to contact the Regional Office to request an ex-
tension of time to file an answer due to the illness of
his father.11 He offers no satisfactory explanation for
not having done so. Although he claims that his fa-
ther’s illness placed substantial demands on his time,
surely he could have found a way to contact the Re-
gional Office to explain why no answers had been
filed and to request an extension of time to file the re-
quired answers.12 NLRB v. Zeno Table, 610 F.2d 567
(9th Cir. 1979), relied on by the Respondent, is distin-
guishable. In that case, the company’s attorney filed an
answer and an explanation for the delay in filing the
answer within 2 days of becoming aware that a com-
plaint had been filed. Here, as noted above, the Re-
spondent’s consultant had been on notice of Board pro-
ceedings against the Respondent at least since the first
complaint was issued in June, but he never contacted
the Regional Office to inform the General Counsel of
his personal situation until summary judgment was im-
minent. Further, unlike in Zeno Table, the Respondent
here has not yet filed an answer even to this date, but
instead now belatedly requests an extension of time in
which to do so. While we are sympathetic to the Re-
spondent’s consultant’s personal situation, this course
of conduct suggests to us a total disregard for Board
procedures.
For these reasons, we find that the Respondent’s ex-
planations do not constitute a showing of good cause
for the failure to file a timely answer. Accordingly, we
grant the General Counsel’s Motion for Summary
Judgment.13
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent, a corporation
with an office and place of business at the Naval
Weapons Station in China Lake, California (the
project), has provided operations and maintenance
services to the United States Navy. During the 12-
month period preceding issuance of the complaint, a
representative period, the Respondent, in conducting its
business operations, received in excess of $50,000 for
its services to the United States Navy. We find that the
Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act. We also find that the Union is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The following employees of the Respondent con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All full-time and regular part-time transportation
department employees employed by the Respond-
ent at the China Lake Weapons Station located in
China Lake, California, but excluding all other
employees, office clerical employees, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:35 May 01, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 01047 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\325.154 APPS10 PsN: APPS10
1048 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
14 In the absence of good cause being shown for the failure to file
an answer, the allegations in the complaint are deemed to be admit-
ted by the Respondent. However, we find it unnecessary to decide
whether the Respondent’s failure to advise the Union of the impend-
ing rate increase is a separate violation of the Act. The findings of
such an additional violation would be cumulative and would not ma-
terially affect the Order, inasmuch as we find that the Respondent
violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by unilaterally implementing
an increase in the employees’ health insurance premiums in about
April and by failing to provide the requested information that is nec-
essary for and relevant to the Union’s performance of its duties as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit.
About May 10, 1996, a majority of the employees
in the unit designated or selected the Union as their
representative for the purposes of collective bargaining
with the Respondent. About May 24, 1996, the Union
was certified as the collective-bargaining representative
of the unit.
At all times since May 24, 1996, the Union has been
the exclusive representative of the unit based on Sec-
tion 9(a) of the Act.
About October 28, 1996, the Respondent insisted, as
a condition of reaching any collective-bargaining
agreement, that the Union agree to a health insurance
benefits plan which would cover all project employees,
i.e., unit and nonunit employees. This condition is not
a mandatory subject for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining.
Since about November 1996, continuing to date, as
specifically memorialized in the Union’s March 24 let-
ter to the Respondent, the Union has requested that the
Respondent furnish the Union and/or its insurance
agent with data pertaining to employees’ claims expe-
rience and paid/loss ratio over the past 1- or 2-year pe-
riod. This information is necessary for and relevant to
the Union’s performance of its duties as the exclusive
collective-bargaining representative of the unit. Since
about December 1996, the Respondent has failed and
refused to furnish the Union and/or its insurance agent
with the requested information.
Since about March 23, the Union, by letter, re-
quested that the Respondent furnish the Union with
certain information. The information requested in items
3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 19, and 22 of the letter is necessary for
and relevant to the Union’s performance of its duties
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
the unit. Further, since about March 31, the Respond-
ent has failed and refused to furnish the Union with
the requested relevant and necessary information.
Since about February 26, the Union, by letter, has
requested that the Respondent furnish the Union with
its certified payroll showing all of the Respondent’s
prevailing wage jobs during the last year and one half.
This information is necessary for and relevant to the
Union’s performance of its duties as the exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of the unit. Further,
since about the same date, the Respondent has failed
and refused to furnish the Union with the requested in-
formation.
Since about January 9, the Union, by letter, has re-
quested that the Respondent furnish the Union with in-
formation pertaining to a written reprimand issued to
a bargaining unit employee. This information is nec-
essary for and relevant to the Union’s performance of
its duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of the unit. Since about the same date, the
Respondent has failed and refused to disclose to the
Union the nature of the information in its possession
and/or has failed and refused to furnish the Union with
the requested information.
In early 1997, the Respondent was informed by its
insurance carrier that the cost of the employees’ health
insurance premiums would be substantially increased
on or about April 1. The Respondent failed to advise
or discuss the impending rate increase with the
Union.14
About March 20, the Respondent bypassed the
Union and engaged in direct dealing with the unit em-
ployees by distributing a memorandum dated March
12, notifying employees of changes to their health in-
surance benefit plan.
In or about April, the Respondent increased the
amount of employees’ health insurance premiums for
single and dependent benefit coverage. By memoran-
dum dated July 21, and distributed about the same
date, the Respondent bypassed the Union and engaged
in direct dealing with the unit employees, by offering
dental insurance benefits to the bargaining unit em-
ployees. These subjects relate to wages, hours, and
other terms and conditions of employment of the unit
and are mandatory subjects for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining. Further, the Respondent engaged in
this conduct without prior notice to the Union and
without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain
with the Respondent with respect to this conduct.
Since about April 18, the Respondent verbally in-
formed and in writing required the employees to ac-
knowledge a rule prohibiting them from displaying
union insignia or stickers on lockers and hard hats, and
has, in furtherance of the rule, removed or required
that stickers be removed from lockers and hard hats.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By the acts and conduct described above, the Re-
spondent has been interfering with, restraining, and co-
ercing, and is interfering with, restraining, and coerc-
ing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby engaged
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
By insisting, as a condition for reaching any collec-
tive-bargaining agreement, on a nonmandatory subject
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:35 May 01, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 01048 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\325.154 APPS10 PsN: APPS10
1049DAY & ZIMMERMAN SERVICES
15 Contrary to his colleagues, Member Brame would not leave this
matter to compliance. Rather, in the absence of any allegation of
overall bad-faith bargaining, and with the first unfair labor practice
by the Respondent occurring 5 months into the certification year,
Member Brame would extend the certification year by 7 months,
running from the date the Respondent begins to bargain in good
faith.
of bargaining; by failing and refusing to furnish the
Union with requested information that is necessary for
and relevant to the performance of its duties as the ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of the unit;
by bypassing the Union and engaging in direct dealing
with unit employees regarding changes to their health
insurance benefits plan, and by unilaterally increasing
unit employees’ health insurance premiums and offer-
ing dental insurance benefits to unit employees, the
Respondent has been failing and refusing to bargain
collectively in good faith with the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of its employees, and has
thereby engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in
certain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease
and desist and to take certain affirmative action de-
signed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifi-
cally, having found that the Respondent has failed to
provide the Union with the information that is relevant
and necessary to its role as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the unit employees, we shall order the
Respondent to furnish the Union with the requested in-
formation in a timely manner without the necessity of
making a new request. I & F Corp., 322 NLRB 1037
fn. 1 (1997).
Further, having found that the Respondent unilater-
ally increased the amount of the unit employees’
health insurance premiums in about April 1997, we
shall order the Respondent to rescind those changes
and to make whole the unit employees by reimbursing
them for the increased cost of the insurance premiums
since April, and by reimbursing them for any expenses
ensuing from the Respondent’s unlawful conduct, in-
cluding expenses incurred by unit employees as a re-
sult of being forced to drop insurance coverage, as set
forth in Kraft Plumbing & Heating, 252 NLRB 891 fn.
2 (1980), enfd. 661 F.2d 940 (9th Cir. 1981), with in-
terest as prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded,
283 NLRB 1173 (1987). However, our Order should
not be construed as requiring the Respondent to cancel
any improvement in benefits without a request from
the Union. See Elias Mallouk Realty Corp., 265 NLRB
1225 fn. 3 (1982).
Finally, having found that the Respondent has vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing and
refusing to continue bargaining collectively in good
faith for an initial collective-bargaining agreement with
the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining rep-
resentative of the unit, we shall order it to do so. The
Respondent’s violations include insisting on a non-
mandatory subject of bargaining as a condition of
reaching agreement on any collective-bargaining agree-
ment, refusing to provide the Union information it re-
quested, bypassing the Union and dealing directly with
employees, and making unilateral changes. This con-
duct precluded the Union from engaging in the collec-
tive-bargaining process during the initial certification
year, and thus we find it appropriate to extend the cer-
tification year to ensure that the employees are ac-
corded the services of their selected bargaining agent
for the period provided by the law. See Enertech Elec-
trical, 309 NLRB 896 (1992), and cases cited therein.
Because it is unclear whether the Respondent engaged
in good-faith bargaining for any period of time before
beginning its unlawful conduct, we will leave for com-
pliance the determination of the amount of time the
certification year will be extended. American Medical
Waste Systems, 321 NLRB 680, 681 (1996). See gen-
erally Van Dorn Plastic Machinery Co., 300 NLRB
278 (1990), enfd. 939 F.2d 402 (6th Cir. 1991);
Dominguez Valley Hospital, 287 NLRB 149 (1987),
enfd. 907 F.2d 905 (9th Cir. 1990); and Colfor v.
NLRB, 838 F.2d 164, 167–168 (6th Cir. 1998) (‘‘the
certification-year extension need not be the product of
a simple arithmetic calculation’’).15
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Day & Zimmerman Services, a Division
of Day & Zimmerman, Inc., China Lake, California, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Insisting, as a condition of reaching any collec-
tive-bargaining agreement with the International Broth-
erhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Black-
smiths, Forgers & Helpers, AFL–CIO, CLC, for the
following unit employees, that the Union agree to a
health insurance benefits’ plan which would cover all
project employees, including those not in the unit, a
nonmandatory subject for the purposes of collective
bargaining:
All full-time and regular part-time transportation
department employees employed by the Respond-
ent at the China Lake Weapons Station located in
China Lake, California, but excluding all other
employees, office clerical employees, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Refusing to provide the Union with requested in-
formation that is necessary for and relevant to the
Union’s performance of its duties as the exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of the unit.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:35 May 01, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 01049 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\325.154 APPS10 PsN: APPS10
1050 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
16 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
National 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.’’
(c) Bypassing the Union and engaging in direct deal-
ing with unit employees.
(d) Unilaterally increasing the amount of employees’
health insurance premiums.
(e) Unilaterally offering dental insurance benefits to
employees.
(f) Promulgating or enforcing a rule prohibiting em-
ployees from displaying union insignia or stickers on
lockers or hard hats.
(g) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Furnish the Union in a timely fashion the infor-
mation requested by the Union in its letters dated Janu-
ary 9, February 26, March 23 (items 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 19,
and 22) and March 24, 1997.
(b) Rescind the changes made in the unit employ-
ees’ health insurance premiums about April 1997, and
make whole the unit employees in the manner set forth
in the remedy section of this decision.
(c) On request by the Union, cancel the dental insur-
ance benefits unilaterally offered unit employees.
(d) On request, bargain with the Union for an initial
collective-bargaining agreement, reducing to writing
any agreement reached as a result of such bargaining.
The Union’s certification year shall be extended for an
additional period of time from commencement of bar-
gaining, as set forth in the remedy section of this deci-
sion.
(e) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, make
available to the Board or its agents for examination
and copying, all payroll records, social security pay-
ment records, timecards, personnel records and reports,
and all other records necessary to analyze the amounts
due under the terms of this Order.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post
at its facility in China Lake, California, copies of the
attached notice marked ‘‘Appendix.’’16 Copies of the
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 31, after being signed by the Respondent’s au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the Re-
spondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in
conspicuous places including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the no-
tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material. In the event that, during the pendency of
these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of
business or closed the facility involved in the proceed-
ings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its
own expense, a copy of the notice to all current em-
ployees and former employees employed by the Re-
spondent at any time since October 28, 1996.
(g) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a
responsible official on a form provided by the Region
attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated the National Labor Relations Act and has or-
dered us to post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT insist, as a condition of reaching a
collective-bargaining agreement with the International
Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders,
Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers, AFL–CIO, CLC, for
the following unit employees, that the Union agree to
a health insurance benefits’ plan which would cover all
project employees, including those not in the unit, a
nonmandatory subject for the purposes of collective
bargaining:
All full-time and regular part-time transportation
department employees employed by the us at our
China Lake Weapons Station located in China
Lake, California, but excluding all other employ-
ees, office clerical employees, guards and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT refuse to provide the Union with re-
quested information that is necessary for and relevant
to the Union’s performance of its duties as the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of the unit.
WE WILL NOT bypass the Union or engage in direct
dealing with unit employees.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally increase the amount of
employees’ health insurance premiums.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally offer dental insurance
benefits to employees.
WE WILL NOT promulgate or enforce a rule prohibit-
ing employees from displaying union insignia or stick-
ers on lockers or hard hats.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL furnish the Union in a timely fashion the
information requested in its letters dated January 9,
February 26, March 23 (items 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 19, and
22), and March 24, 1997.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:35 May 01, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 01050 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\325.154 APPS10 PsN: APPS10
1051DAY & ZIMMERMAN SERVICES
WE WILL rescind the changes made in the unit em-
ployees’ health insurance premiums about April 1997,
and make whole the unit employees, with interest.
WE WILL, on request by the Union, cancel the dental
insurance benefits unilaterally offered unit employees.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union for an
initial collective-bargaining agreement, reducing to
writing any agreement reached as a result of such bar-
gaining. The Union’s certification year shall be ex-
tended for an additional period of time from com-
mencement of bargaining.
DAY & ZIMMERMAN SERVICES, A DIVI-
SION OF DAY & ZIMMERMAN, INC.
VerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:35 May 01, 2002 Jkt 197585 PO 00004 Frm 01051 Fmt 0610 Sfmt 0610 D:\NLRB\325.154 APPS10 PsN: APPS10