Dearborn Gage Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 31, 2006

346 N.L.R.B. 738 (N.L.R.B. 2006)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
346 NLRB No. 71
738
Dearborn Gage Company, General Gage Division
and Precision Gage/Dearborn, LLC and Local
157, International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Work-
ers of America (UAW), AFL–CIO, and Its Suc-
cessor Local 174. Cases 7–CA–44113 and 7–CA–
44572
March 31, 2006
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS SCHAUMBER
AND WALSH
On November 4, 2002, Administrative Law Judge Karl
H. Buschmann issued the attached decision. The General
Counsel and the Charging Party each filed exceptions,
supporting briefs, and reply briefs, and the Respondents
Dearborn Gage and Precision Gage each filed answering
briefs. The Respondents each filed cross-exceptions and
supporting briefs, and the General Counsel and the
Charging Party each filed answering briefs.1
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions, cross-exceptions, and briefs
and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,
and conclusions2 and adopts the recommended Order of

1 The Charging Party argues that Dearborn Gage’s cross-exceptions
fail to comply with Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations,
because the cross-exceptions do not specifically set forth the question
to which exception is taken. We find that Dearborn’s cross-exceptions
and brief are in substantial compliance with the Board’s Rules. Ac-
cordingly, we shall consider them on their merits.
2 In adopting the judge’s conclusion that Dearborn Gage violated
Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing to notify the Charging Party of the plant
closure and failing to bargain over the effects of the closure, we reject
the Respondents’ argument that there should be no violation because
the decision to close the plant was “immediate” and “immutable” in
light of the fact that Bank One, the secured creditor of all of Dearborn
Gage’s assets, indicated it was liquidating those assets. It is well settled
that a union must be given an opportunity to bargain about the effects
on its members of a termination of an employer’s operation “in a mean-
ingful manner and at a meaningful time.” First National Maintenance
Corp. v. NLRB, 452 U.S. 666, 681–682 (1981). An employer must
therefore give the union representing its employees timely notice and
the opportunity to bargain before a planned closure, and, as relevant,
this requirement has been excused only in cases of emergency. See,
e.g., Reeves, Bros., 306 NLRB 610, 612 (1992), enfd. 990 F.2d 1252
(5th Cir. 1993). Under all the circumstances described in the judge’s
decision, we find no emergency excusing Dearborn Gage from the prior
notice requirement. Furthermore, emergency does not excuse the re-
quirement that the employer bargain about the effects of the closure.
See National Terminal Baking Corp., 190 NLRB 465, 466 (1971). As
found by the judge, Dearborn Gage rejected all of the Charging Party’s
oral and written requests to bargain over the effects of the closure, and
thus violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1).
Chairman Battista finds that, by notifying Union Chief Steward
Brenda Smelewski of the plant closure on April 18, 2001, the Respon-
the administrative law judge as modified and set forth in
full below.3
AMENDED REMEDY
Having found that the Respondents have engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall order them to cease
and desist from those practices and to take certain af-
firmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the
Act.
As a result of Dearborn Gage’s unlawful failure to
bargain in good faith with the Charging Party about the
effects of its decision to close the plant, the terminated
employees have been denied an opportunity to bargain
through their collective-bargaining representative.
Meaningful bargaining cannot be assured until some
measure of economic strength is restored to the Charging
Party. A bargaining order alone, therefore, cannot serve
as an adequate remedy for the unfair labor practices
committed.
Accordingly, we deem it necessary, in order to effec-
tuate the purposes of the Act, to require Dearborn Gage
to bargain with the Charging Party concerning the effects
of closing its facility on its employees, and shall accom-
pany our order with a limited backpay requirement de-
signed both to make whole the employees for losses suf-
fered as a result of the violations and to re-create in some
practicable manner a situation in which the parties’ bar-
gaining position is not entirely devoid of economic con-
sequences for Dearborn Gage. We shall do so by order-
ing Dearborn Gage to pay backpay to the terminated em-
ployees in a manner similar to that required in Transma-

dent did provide notice to the Union. However, the Respondent knew
of the Bank’s position at least 1 week before April 18. If notice had
been given at that time, there would have been an opportunity to bar-
gain on effects at a very critical time. Further, the steward notified
other union officials on April 19, and a request to bargain was promptly
made. The Respondent refused the request.
3 The General Counsel and the Charging Party have excepted to the
judge’s recommended Order and remedy, noting that the judge ap-
peared to make various inadvertent errors, such as only applying the
Order to Precision Gage, failing to order that notices be mailed to the
last known address of any unit employee who was employed by Dear-
born Gage on April 18, 2001, and not ordering that Precision Gage
remedy the unfair labor practices of Dearborn Gage to the extent that
Dearborn Gage fails to do so. The General Counsel and the Charging
Party also except to the judge’s failure to provide the Board’s standard
remedy for failures to bargain over the effects of plant closures under
Transmarine Navigation Corp., 170 NLRB 389 (1968). As to the
Transmarine remedy, in light of our finding that the Respondents have
not established that Dearborn Gage closed the plant in an emergency,
we reject the Respondents’ argument that such a remedy is not appro-
priate. We find merit in this exception and to the others as well. We
shall conform the remedy, recommended Order, and notice accord-
ingly.
DEARBORN GAGE CO. 739
rine Navigation Corp., supra, as clarified by Melody Toy-
ota, 325 NLRB 846 (1998).
Thus, Dearborn Gage shall pay its terminated employ-
ees backpay at the rate of their normal wages when last
in Dearborn Gage’s employ from 5 days after the date of
this Decision and Order until occurrence of the earliest of
the following conditions: (1) the date Dearborn Gage
bargains to agreement with the Charging Party on those
subjects pertaining to the effects of the closing of its fa-
cility on its employees; (2) a bona fide impasse in bar-
gaining; (3) the Charging Party’s failure to request bar-
gaining within 5 business days after receipt of this Deci-
sion and Order, or to commence negotiations within 5
business days after receipt of Dearborn Gage’s notice of
its desire to bargain with the Charging Party4; and (4) the
Charging Party’s subsequent failure to bargain in good
faith, but in no event shall the sum paid to these employ-
ees exceed the amount they would have earned as wages
from the date on which Dearborn Gage terminated its
operations to the time they secured equivalent employ-
ment elsewhere, or the date on which Dearborn Gage
shall have offered to bargain in good faith, whichever
occurs sooner; provided, however, that in no event shall
this sum be less than the employees would have earned
for a 2-week period at the rate of their normal wages
when last in Dearborn Gage’s employ. Backpay shall be
based on earnings which the terminated employees
would normally have received during the applicable pe-
riod, less any net interim earnings, and shall be computed
in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289
(1950), with interest as prescribed in New Horizons for
the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
It is further necessary that Dearborn Gage be ordered
to comply with the Charging Party’s April 20 and Octo-
ber 17, 2001 information requests.
We also agree with the judge that Precision Gage is a
successor employer to Dearborn Gage, that it violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to recog-
nize and bargain with the Charging Party and when it
failed to furnish the Charging Party with the requested
relevant information sought on October 17, that Olof
Ellstrom (president of both of the Respondents) was
aware of the unfair labor practices of both of the Re-
spondents, and that accordingly Precision Gage should
be jointly and severally liable for the unfair labor prac-
tices of Dearborn Gage as the judge found. See Golden
State Bottling Co. v. NLRB, 414 U.S. 168 (1973).
In addition, we shall order Precision Gage to recognize
and, on request, bargain with the Charging Party as the
representative of its bargaining unit employees. It is fur-

4 Melody Toyota, supra.
ther necessary that Precision Gage be ordered to comply
with the Charging Party’s October 17 information re-
quest.
In view of the fact that Dearborn Gage’s facility is cur-
rently closed, we shall order Dearborn Gage to mail a
copy of the attached notice to the Charging Party and to
the last known addresses of its former employees in or-
der to inform them of the outcome of this proceeding.
ORDER
A. The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent Dearborn Gage Company, General Gage
Division, Garden City, Michigan, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to notify the Union about the
plant closure and to bargain about its effects on the em-
ployees with the Union, as the exclusive bargaining rep-
resentative of the employees in the following unit:
All production and maintenance employees employed
by the Respondent at its facility, including shipping and
receiving employees, and truck drivers; but excluding
office clerical employees, professional employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Failing to comply with the Union’s information re-
quests of April 20 and October 17, 2001.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request, bargain with the Union concerning the
effects on unit employees of its decision to cease opera-
tions at its Garden City, Michigan facility, and put in
writing and sign any agreement reached as a result of
such bargaining.
(b) Furnish to the Union in a timely manner the in-
formation requested by it on April 20 and October 17,
2001.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, mail
copies of the attached notices marked “Appendix A” and
“Appendix B.”5 Copies of the notices, on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being
signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative,
shall be duplicated and mailed, at the Respondent’s ex-
pense, to all current employees and former employees

5 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD740
employed by the Respondent at any time since April 18,
2001.
B. The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent Precision Gage/Dearborn LLC, Canton,
Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with
the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of
its employees in the following appropriate unit:
All production and maintenance employees employed
by the Respondent at its facility, including shipping and
receiving employees, and truck drivers; but excluding
office clerical employees, professional employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) Failing to comply with the Union’s information re-
quest of October 17, 2001.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its 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) Recognize and, on request, bargain in good faith
with the Union as the collective-bargaining representa-
tive of its bargaining unit employees.
(b) Furnish to the Union in a timely manner the infor-
mation requested by it on October 17, 2001.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Canton, Michigan, copies of the attached
notices marked “Appendix A” and “Appendix B.”6 Cop-
ies of the notices, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 7, after being signed by the Respon-
dent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent 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 these proceedings, the Re-
spondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a
copy of the notice to all current employees and former
employees employed by the Respondent at any time
since April 18, 2001.
C. The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondents Dearborn Gage Co., General Gage Division
and Precision Gage/Dearborn LLC, Garden City and
Canton, Michigan, their officers, agents, successors, and

6 See fn.5, infra.
assigns, shall take the following affirmative action neces-
sary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Jointly and severally make whole bargaining unit
employees for any losses they may have suffered as a
result of Dearborn Gage’s failure and refusal to bargain
with the Union concerning the effects of its termination
of operations, in the manner set forth in the remedy sec-
tion of this decision.
(b) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, timecards, personnel re-
cords and reports, and all other records, including an
electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic
form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay due
under the terms of this Order.
(c) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondents have taken to
comply.
APPENDIX A
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 vio-
lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey
this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to bargain with Local
157, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW), AFL–CIO and its successor, Local 174 concern-
ing the effects of our decision to terminate operations.
WE WILL NOT refuse to furnish to the aforesaid union
information relevant to bargaining.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
DEARBORN GAGE CO. 741
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union concern-
ing the effects of our decision to terminate our opera-
tions.
WE WILL furnish to the Union in a timely manner the
information requested by it on April 20 and October 17,
2001.
WE WILL make whole bargaining unit employees for
any losses they may have suffered as a result of our fail-
ure and refusal to bargain with the Union concerning the
effects of our termination of operations.
DEARBORN GAGE COMPANY, GENERAL
GAGE DIVISION
APPENDIX B
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 vio-
lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey
this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to recognize and bargain
with Local 157, International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW), AFL–CIO and its successor, Local 174
as the collective-bargaining representative of our em-
ployees in the following appropriate unit:
All production and maintenance employees employed
by us at our facility, including shipping and receiving
employees, and truck drivers; but excluding office
clerical employees, professional employees, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT refuse to furnish to the aforesaid union
information relevant to bargaining.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL recognize and, on request, bargain in good
faith with the Union as the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of our bargaining unit employees and put in
writing and sign any agreement reached on terms and
conditions of employment for our employees in the bar-
gaining unit.
WE WILL furnish to the Union in a timely manner the
information requested by it on October 17, 2001.
WE WILL make whole bargaining unit employees for
any losses they may have suffered as a result of Dearborn
Gage’s failure and refusal to bargain with the Union con-
cerning the effects of its termination of operations.
PRECISION GAGE/DEARBORN, LLC
Dwight R. Kirksey and Darlene M. Haas, Esqs., for the General
Counsel.
A. Read Cone III, Esq. (Dean & Fulkerson, P.C.), of Troy,
Michigan, for Respondent Precision Gage/Dearborn, LLC.
Paul E. Pedersen, Esq. (Pedersen, Keenan, King, Waschsberg
& Andrzejak, P.C.), of Commerce Township, Michigan, for
Respondent Dearborn Gage Company.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
KARL H. BUSCHMANN, Administrative Law Judge. This case
was tried on May 14, 15, and 16, 2002, in Detroit, Michigan.
Pursuant to Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act
(the Act), and Section 102.15 of the Rules and Regulations of
the National Labor Relations Board (the Board), the General
Counsel consolidated Cases 7–CA–44113 and 7–CA–44572
filed by the Charging Party, Local 157, International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW), AFL–CIO, and its successor Lo-
cal 174 (the Union). The charge in Case 7–CA–44113 was filed
on June 12, 2001. The charge in Case 7–CA–44572 was filed
on November 20, 2001. The charge in Case 7–CA–44113 was
filed against Dearborn Gage Company (Dearborn or Respon-
dent) and alleges that Dearborn refused to bargain and refused
to provide relevant and necessary requested information regard-
ing a plant shutdown and layoffs. The charge in Case 7–CA–
44572 was filed against Dearborn and Precision Gage/Dearborn
LLC1 (Precision or Respondent) and alleges that Precision is a
perfectly clear successor to Dearborn and that Precision is li-
able for any unfair labor practices committed by Dearborn. The
charge in Case 7–CA–44572 also alleges that Precision unilat-
erally changed terms and conditions of employment, it refused
to bargain with the Union, and that it and Dearborn refused to
provide relevant and necessary requested information.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times before it went out of business, Respon-
dent Dearborn Gage Company (Respondent Dearborn or Dear-

1 The consolidated complaint, transcript, and submitted briefs by the
General Counsel and the Union cite Precision’s full name as “Precision
Gage–Dearborn LLC.” However, the actual Operating Agreement
establishing Precision as an entity names the Company as “Precision
Gage/Dearborn LLC.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD742
born) was a corporation with an office and place of business at
32330 Ford Road, Garden City, Michigan (the Garden City
facility). Respondent Dearborn was principally engaged in the
manufacture and nonretail sale of industrial gauges. Respon-
dent Dearborn admits, and I find, that in conducting its business
operations during 2000, it derived gross revenues in excess of
$500,000 and shipped goods in excess of $50,000 from its Gar-
den City, Michigan facilities to points directly outside the State
of Michigan. Respondent Dearborn further admits, and I find,
that it is an employer engaged in commerce with the meaning
of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
At all material times after it commenced business in July
2001, Respondent Precision Gage/Dearborn LLC (Respondent
Precision or Precision) was a limited liability company with an
office and place of business at 32330 Ford Road, Garden City,
Michigan, until it moved to 8680 N. Haggerty Road, Canton,
Michigan (the Canton facility). Respondent Precision admits,
and I find, that in conducting its business operations since it
commenced business, it derived gross revenues in excess of
$500,000 and shipped goods valued in excess of $50,000 from
its facilities in Garden City and Canton, Michigan, to points
located directly outside the State of Michigan. Respondent
Precision further admits, and I find, that it is an employer en-
gaged in commerce with the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act.
At all material times, each Charging Party Union and its In-
ternational Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL–CIO (the
Union) has been a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Dearborn Gage Company was a family run business founded
in 1957. It ceased normal operations on June 26, 2001. At the
time of closing, Olof Ellstrom,2 the founder’s grandson, was the
president of Dearborn. His brother, Richard Ellstrom, was
Dearborn’s vice president. Mario Sciberras was Dearborn’s
chief financial officer and William Valentine was the manager
of operations. Olof Ellstrom, Richard Ellstrom, and Mario Sci-
berras each owned 33.33 percent of the Company. On June 26,
2001, Sciberras’ shares were transferred to Olof Ellstrom, mak-
ing Olof and Richard Ellstrom the sole owners of the Dearborn
Gage Company.
From 1960 until it ceased operations, Dearborn recognized
the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of unit
employees. The bargaining unit consisted of:
All production and maintenance employees in the Garden
City facility, including shipping and receiving employees, and
truckdrivers. Excluded from the bargaining unit were office
clerical employees, professional employees, guards and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.

2 Two Ellstroms are mentioned in this decision, Olof Ellstrom and
Richard Ellstrom. Olof Ellstrom will be referred to as Ellstrom or Olof
Ellstrom. Richard Ellstrom will be referred to as Richard Ellstrom.
As of April 18, 2001, Dearborn employed 29 unit employees.3
(GC Exh. 5.)
The last collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) between
Dearborn and the Union4 became effective September 15, 2000,
and was to endure until September 14, 2004. UAW Interna-
tional Representative Greg Drudi negotiated on behalf of the
Union. Olof Ellstrom, Mario Sciberras, and William Valentine
negotiated on behalf of Dearborn. The CBA named Brenda
Smelewski as the chief steward and Thomas Clark and Bruce
Mayotte as committee persons at Dearborn’s facility.
Towards the beginning of March 2001,5 Ellstrom was in-
formed by Bank One (the Bank), the secured creditor of all of
Dearborn’s assets,6 that it was concerned about Dearborn’s
financial status and inability to make loan payments.7 The
Bank told Ellstrom that Sciberras provided false accounting
reports to the Bank, and also that Dearborn owed approxi-
mately $500,000 in back taxes to the Internal Revenue Service.
Ellstrom claimed that he was unaware of Sciberras’ accounting
practices and the Company’s indebtedness to the IRS.
Around April 11, 2001, officials at the Bank told Ellstrom
that the Bank did not believe Dearborn could survive its finan-
cial state and that it was going to liquidate all of Dearborn’s
assets.8 On April 18, 2001, Ellstrom informed a small group of
employees, including Chief Steward Smelewski that the plant
was shutting down and that this would be the last day of work
for the majority of them. He told them that the Bank was taking
over the operations of the Company and that it wanted to retain
a few employees during the wind-down to complete selected
ongoing orders. The announcement came as a surprise to the
employees as none had been told that the Company was even in
serious financial distress.
Although International Representative Greg Drudi met with
Valentine at Dearborn’s facility to discuss on going grievance
issues 9 on April 11, 2001, Valentine failed to tell Drudi that the

3 There were 38 unit employees at Dearborn in March 2001.
4 The CBA indicated that Respondent Dearborn recognized the In-
ternational Union, and its Local 157 as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of unit employees. On September 7, 2001, Local 157 Presi-
dent Bruno Duchaine faxed and mailed a letter to the offices of all the
Local’s units informing management that Local 157 had changed its
name to Local 174.
5 Ellstrom testified that he first learned of Dearborn’s financial status
in “the early part of March.” (Tr. 381.)
6 In addition to being indebted to the Bank as a co-owner of Dear-
born, Ellstrom was also indebted to Donald Brooks (an investor in
Precision Gage/Dearborn LLC) in the amount of $100,000. That loan
was outstanding at the time of the trial.
7 Olof Ellstrom, Richard Ellstrom, and Mario Sciberras were per-
sonal guarantors of the loans.
8 The Bank ordered Ellstrom to dismiss Sciberras from his position
with the Company. Ellstrom did not immediately act. Sciberras was
present at the Garden City facility and working in his capacity as a
Dearborn official when he discussed union matters with International
Representative Greg Drudi on April 20, 2001. Sciberras was not offi-
cially bought out by Ellstrom until June 26, 2001.
9 Drudi met with Valentine to discuss four grievance issues filed by
the Local against Dearborn. They involved previous layoffs that oc-
curred in March 2001, and retirement benefits. Valentine discussed
three of the grievances, but refused to discuss the retiree benefits griev-
DEARBORN GAGE CO. 743
company was in financial distress and was going to shut down.
In fact, Dearborn made no mention at all of the meetings it was
conducting with the Bank to union officials. The Union did not
learn of the Company’s shutdown, and mass layoff of unit em-
ployees, until Chief Steward Smelewski contacted Drudi on the
morning of April 19, 2001, to apprise him of the situation at
Dearborn. Drudi was immersed in negotiations involving a
different unit at that time and could not immediately drive to
Garden City to meet her. Drudi asked Smelewski to find out all
she could about the closure and arrange a meeting between the
Union and Dearborn. He also told her to contact Local Presi-
dent Bruno Duchaine.
After hearing from Smelewski that Dearborn was closing
and that the majority of unit employees were laid off without
consultation with the Union, Duchaine also asked Smelewski to
set up a meeting between the Union and Ellstrom to discuss the
plant closure. That same day, and in coordination with Drudi,
Duchaine mailed and faxed a letter to Ellstrom and Vice Presi-
dent Richard Ellstrom demanding a meeting in order to bargain
over the impact of the closure on employees, and to discuss
money owed to employees for vacation, personal days, unpaid
wages, insurance continuation during the layoff, 401(K) and
pension contributions, and retiree’s insurance. The letter further
stated that the meeting must occur before any official closing
and before any equipment was moved.
On April 20, 2001, not having received a response from
Dearborn himself, Duchaine asked Smelewski if she had any
response from Dearborn. Smelewski told Duchaine that Ell-
strom did not believe he had a duty to negotiate with the Union.
She then resigned from her position as chief steward citing a
conflict of interest because her husband was still a salaried
employee of Dearborn. That same day, after speaking with
Smelewski, Duchaine called Ellstrom’s office. His secretary
answered the call, put Duchaine on hold, came back on the line,
and told him that any further communication should be directed
to the Bank. Duchaine was not able to speak directly to Ell-
strom.
Duchaine then sent another letter to Dearborn on April 20,
2001. In it, he again demanded a meeting to negotiate the ef-
fects of the closing on unit employees and asked for informa-
tion regarding the Company’s financial status and the circum-
stances surrounding the closing. Specifically, Duchaine asked
Dearborn to provide information on:
1. Unpaid employee wages at time of closing.
2. Vacation time and wages owed to employees.
3. Employee personal days.
4. Whether Dearborn intended to pay health insurance
premiums.
5. Whether any outside firm, company, or agency was
involved in or connected to the closing.
6. Whether there was a sale agreement regarding the
facility, and the details if there was such an agreement.

ance. Valentine told Drudi that retiree benefits was an area handled by
Sciberras and that Drudi would have to speak with him regarding the
final grievance.
The letter then asked for copies of documents related to the
employees’ pension plans, actuarial evaluations, various De-
partment of Labor forms, and other documents related to em-
ployee insurance. (GC Exh. 1(1)A.) The Union did not receive
a response to either the April 19 or 20, 2001 letter.10
On April 20 or 21, 2001, Drudi called Sciberras to discuss
the closure and arrange a meeting to bargain over the closure’s
effect on employees. Sciberras told Drudi that the Bank had
taken over the business and that it intended to liquidate all its
assets. Sciberras told Drudi that there was no money to bargain
with. Sciberras did not agree to a meeting.
Sometime between April 23 and 25, 2001, Drudi called Ell-
strom. Ellstrom essentially repeated what Sciberras said earlier.
Ellstrom told Drudi that Dearborn was “out of formula” in its
loan payments to the Bank and that the Bank was effecting a
secured lender takeover. He said that the Bank was now calling
the shots and forcing Dearborn to liquidate all its assets. Ell-
strom refused to discuss the grievance issues already filed
against Dearborn, but assured Drudi that employees would
retain health care benefits until the end of the month, and that
he would make sure employees were paid their earned wages
and accumulated vacation time. Nonetheless, Drudi demanded
a meeting to discuss the plant closure, but Ellstrom refused.
Ellstrom claimed that between April 18 and June 26, 2001,
the Bank controlled the daily operations of Dearborn. He stated
that the groups of five or six unit employees were kept on to
finish a few large ongoing orders at the direction of the Bank.
Also, a Bank auditor regularly visited the Garden City facility
to make certain that operations were being performed as or-
dered by the Bank.
The Bank told Ellstrom to dismiss Sciberras from his posi-
tion with the Company during its first liquidation meeting with
Ellstrom in the early part of March 2001. However, Ellstrom
did not immediately act. Sciberras was present at the Garden
City facility and working in his capacity as a Dearborn official
when he discussed union matters with Drudi on April 20, 2001.
Sciberras was not officially removed as a co-owner of Dearborn
until June 26, 2001 (the same day Dearborn ceased normal
operations).
On May 10, 2001, Drudi sent a letter to Ellstrom indicating
that he still had not received an answer to any of the Union’s
four grievances against Dearborn and that the Union intended
to bring two of those grievances to arbitration. On June 22,
2001, Drudi sent another letter to Dearborn repeating the mes-
sage expressed in the last letter. Sometime during the last full
week of June11 (June 24–30, 2001), Valentine called Drudi to
discuss the issues raised in the May 10, 2001 letter. Drudi told
Valentine that he needed an answer to the grievances. On July
9, 2001, Valentine faxed a letter to the Union referencing the
grievances. However, it did not specifically address any of the
issues raised.

10 Also on April 20, 2001, the Union filed an unfair labor practice
charge against Dearborn. This charge was later withdrawn and/or
amended to become the June 12, 2001 charge in Case 7–CA–44113.
11 Drudi could not provide the exact date but testified that he spoke
to Valentine while he was attending a week long training seminar in
Traverse City during the last full week of June.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD744
On May 11, 2001, a little more than 3 weeks after telling
Dearborn employees that Dearborn was shutting down and over
a month before Dearborn actually closed shop, the Operating
Agreement of Precision Gage/Dearborn LLC was signed and
the new Company brought into existence. The Agreement was
signed by Ellstrom (as president of Precision), Donald R.
Brooks (trustee of the Donald R. Brooks Revocable Trust),
Thomas M. Wheeler (trustee of the Thomas M. Wheeler Revo-
cable Trust), Paul Oster, and Douglas S. Soifer (trustee of the
Douglas S. Soifer Revocable Trust). As per the Agreement,
Ellstrom, as president, also assumed the responsibilities of the
chief executive officer because one was not specifically named.
The Brooks Trust, the Wheeler Trust, Oster, and the Soifer
Trust were co-owners of Precision with each owning 45, 45, 5,
and 5 percent, respectively.
Five or six Dearborn unit employees and most of the nonunit
administrative staff were still employed by Dearborn at the time
Precision’s Operating Agreement was signed. Dearborn em-
ployees’ checks were issued by Dearborn using Dearborn
checks. Although an auditor from the Bank was sometimes
present at the facility, Dearborn officials directed the day-to-
day assignments of Dearborn employees.
Through out Dearborn’s “wind down” period (April 18—
June 26, 2001), Dearborn officials repeatedly assured several
unit employees that the end of Dearborn was not necessarily the
end of their employment. On April 18, 2001, Dearborn unit
employee Ed Wojtan went to Ellstrom’s office to ask if he
could continue storing some of his personal property on Dear-
born property until after he returned from a vacation the follow-
ing week. Ellstrom told Wojtan that he could, and then said,
“not to go too far. We have something in the works . . . when
you get back from vacation, come back to work.” (Tr. 83.) Wo-
jtan testified that he continued working at Dearborn until May
19, 2001. During that time Ellstrom and Valentine assured Wo-
jtan, and other unit employees that “something was in the
works.” (Tr. 92.) Ellstrom told Wojtan that there was a new
building, and equipment was being transferred. On May 19,
2001 (and after Precision was formed), Ed Wojtan and another
unit employee Steve Mersino were laid off. Ellstrom told them
not to worry because they would be called back to work for the
“new company.” (Tr. 94.) Unit employee Desmond Hanson
was told that new investors had been found.
On July 16, 2001, a month after Dearborn actually suspended
operations, Precision employees started arriving to work at the
same Garden City facility that Dearborn previously used. Preci-
sion’s job classifications were essentially the same as those
used by Dearborn except for a few cosmetic alterations. (See
GC Exhs. 3, 10, and 26.) As of August 6, 2001, Precision em-
ployed 12 employees who would have qualified as unit em-
ployees under the Union’s CBA with Dearborn.
All 12 of those employees were former Dearborn unit em-
ployees. As of May 2002, Precision employed 19 individuals,
who would have been considered unit employees under the
Dearborn CBA, 14 of those employees were formerly em-
ployed by Dearborn. These 14 employees performed the same
function at Precision as they did at Dearborn and were paid
approximately the same amount as they were paid at Dearborn
with only a few minor changes.
The management at Precision was essentially the same as
that of Dearborn. Olof Ellstrom was president of Dearborn and
is the president of Precision. Richard Ellstrom was the vice
president of Dearborn and head of sales. Richard Ellstrom is
now the sales manager of Precision. Valentine was the vice
president of operations at Dearborn and is now the vice presi-
dent of operations at Precision. Bob Bower was a foreman at
Dearborn and is now a foreman at Precision. Sixteen of the
twenty-five Precision employees who would have been consid-
ered nonunit employees under the Dearborn CBA were former
nonunit Dearborn employees.
Of the 112 Precision customers, 111 were formerly Dearborn
customers. All suppliers to Precision were suppliers to Dear-
born. Precision manufactures essentially the same products that
were once manufactured by Dearborn, with the exception of a
gauge used in missile test systems. The missile gage comprised
a substantial portion of Dearborn’s business towards the last
few months of its existence.
In December 2001, Precision purchased all of Dearborn’s
equipment and moved out of the Garden City facility. With the
exception of two pieces of equipment, all of Precision’s current
equipment was formerly Dearborn’s. (GC Exh. 23.)
Precision’s policy manual contains a letter from President
Ellstrom. In it, Ellstrom refers to a “history of good employee
relations.” (GC Exh. 10.) This manual was given to employees
at least as early as August 23, 2001, a little more than 1 month
after Precision began operations.
The manual also outlines several Precision benefits that are
significantly different from those enjoyed by unit employees at
Dearborn. For example, at Dearborn employees were paid over-
time for time in excess of 8 hours per day. At Precision, em-
ployees only accrue overtime for time in excess of 40 hours per
week. Precision employees are considered “at will employees”
and have no seniority rights. Dearborn unit employees enjoyed
seniority rights. Precision employees have less vacation time
than Dearborn employees. Precision does not give its employ-
ees a paid vacation day for the day after Thanksgiving, as
Dearborn did. Precision does not offer company contributions
to its employees’ 401(k) plans. Precision also provides less in
medical benefits than Dearborn did. (GC Exh. 20.)
On June 12, 2001, the Union amended its April 20, 2001 un-
fair labor practice charge against Dearborn to include the recent
events. The amended charge alleged that Dearborn refused to
bargain and refused to provide relevant and necessary requested
information regarding a plant shutdown and layoffs. The Board
issued a complaint against Dearborn on August 31, 2001.
On September 13, 2001, Ellstrom sent Drudi a letter in re-
sponse to the complaint. Ellstrom made no mention of Preci-
sion in the letter. Around this time the Union started to hear of
Precision’s emergence and that it employed many former Dear-
born unit employees. Drudi tried and Ellstrom tried to contact
each other by telephone, but were unable to get a hold of one
another. On October 17, 2001, Drudi wrote to Ellstrom and
alleged that Precision was the alter ego of Dearborn. On No-
vember 5, 2001, Ellstrom, in his personal capacity, wrote to
Drudi from his vacation home address in Boyne City using his
personal stationary and denied the allegation.
DEARBORN GAGE CO. 745
On November 16, 2001, the Union filed its charge against
Dearborn and Precision alleging that Precision unilaterally
changed terms and conditions of employment of unit employ-
ees, it refused to bargain with the Union, and that it and Dear-
born refused to provide relevant and necessary requested in-
formation.
III. THE ARGUMENT
A. Plant Closure Without Notice or Bargaining
Dearborn, which had a longstanding bargaining relationship
with the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of
Dearborn’s production and maintenance employees and which
operated under a collective-bargaining agreement effective
until September 14, 2004, never officially notified the Union of
Dearborn’s plant closure. Yet Dearborn’s chief executive and
owner knew of the Company’s precarious financial condition as
early as March or early April 2001 and was notified by the
Bank a week prior to April 18, 2001, that the Bank would be in
control of Dearborn. Indeed, already after the first or second
meeting with the Bank, Ellstrom fired Mario Sciberras, vice
president and chief financial officer, at the direction of the
Bank. Sciberras was blamed for having submitted false reports
to the Bank. Most of the employees were suddenly laid off. Not
until April 19, 2001, was the Union made aware of the events
by Brenda Smelewski, an employee and chief steward. She
telephoned Greg Drudi, international union representative, to
inform him that 24 of the 29 unit employees were laid off and
that 5 employees were still employed as a skeleton crew. At
Drudi’s behest, Smelweski also notified Bruno Duchaine, presi-
dent of Local 157, on April 19, 2001. Dearborn still had not
given official notice to the Union of the plant closure. On the
same day, the Union faxed and mailed a letter to the Company
demanding to bargain over the impact of the plant closing. (GC
Exh. 6.) On April 20, 2001, the Union made several oral re-
quests to meet and to bargain. The Company rejected all oral
and written requests. The Union sent another letter, dated April
20, 2001, requesting information and demanding bargaining.
All attempts failed. In short, the Respondent had failed to notify
the Union, it had refused to bargain, and it rejected the request
to provide relevant information. The argument that the Union
should have bargained with the Bank or request the information
from the Bank ignores the fact that the Respondent’s manage-
ment was still in place and functional in all other respects.
Board law is clear as expressed in Burgmeyer Bros., Inc.,
254 NLRB 1027, 1028 (1981):
The Board, with court approval, has long held that
when an employer decides to terminate or close its entire
operation it must, once that decision is made, afford the
employees’ collective-bargaining representative the oppor-
tunity to bargain over the impact and effect of that deci-
sion on unit employees. Furthermore, an employer is not
relieved of its obligation to bargain over the effects of its
decision to close merely because it has become a debtor-
in-possession under the Bankruptcy Act and believes that,
as a result thereof, it would be financially unable to meet
any of the Union’s bargaining demands.
Accordingly, the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act, as alleged in the complaint, when it failed to notify the
Union and refused to bargain over the effects of the plant clo-
sure. See also First National Maintenance Corp. v. NLRB, 452
U.S. 666, 681 (1981).
B. Information Request
The complaint further alleges that the Respondent Dearborn
and Respondent Precision failed and refused to furnish the Un-
ion with information relevant to its role as bargaining represen-
tative of the employees. In Howard University, 290 NLRB
1006 (1988), the Board held that the employer’s obligation
extends also to information required to process a grievance so
long as the probability exists that the desired information is
relevant. The record shows that the Union directed an informa-
tion request, dated April 20, 2001, which in several paragraphs
clearly described the information sought relevant to its ability
to negotiate an agreement or an understanding involving the
Respondent’s plans to close the plant. (GC Exh. 7.) Drudi and
Ellstrom had discussions over the telephone during which Ell-
strom provided scant information. The parties “discussed con-
tractual entitlements, such as wages, vacations, personal days,
insurance,” but the Respondent failed to furnish the requested
information.
Subsequently, by certified letter of October 17, 2001, ad-
dressed to Dearborn Gage-Precision Gage, the Union requested
additional information. (GC Exh. 17.) This information request
concerned the interrelationship, if any, between Dearborn and
Precision and the issue, whether Precision was the alter ego of
Dearborn. Ellstrom responded by letter of November 5, 2001,
which merely said that Dearborn no longer existed and that it
lacked any staff to provide the information. (GC Exh. 18.)
Clearly, this letter was not responsive and also misleading. The
information request was not only directed to Dearborn but also
to its successor. Ellstrom, as president, or any one in manage-
ment of Precision, could have provided the relevant informa-
tion. The record shows that Dearborn and Precision failed to
honor the information request, which has long been held to be
entirely appropriate. In Bamard Engineering Co., 282 NLRB
617 (1987), and the Board held that the union is entitled to the
information relating to the relationships between two opera-
tions. Under these circumstances, the record here clearly sup-
ports a finding of a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5). NLRB
v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967).
C. Successorship
The General Counsel and the Union argue that Precision is a
“perfectly clear” successor to Dearborn as alleged in the com-
plaint, requiring the “new” company to bargain. The record
clearly shows that the Union was the bargaining representative
of Dearborn’s production and maintenance employees. The
record further shows that a substantial continuity exists be-
tween Dearborn and Precision, which assumed the bulk of
Dearborn’s work force, maintained the identical management
structure, had the same customers and suppliers and continued
the same operation under similar working conditions. Under
such a scenario, it is well settled that the present employer is
bound by the predecessor’s bargaining obligation. NLRB v.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD746
Burns Security Services, 406 U.S. 272, 277 (1972). In Fall
River Dyeing Corp., 482 U.S. 27, 43 (1987), the Court, citing
Burns, held that the question is factual in nature and based on
the totality of the circumstances, stating:
Hence, the focus is on whether there is “substantial continu-
ity” between the enterprises. Under this approach, the Board
examines a number of factors: whether the business of both
employers is essentially the same; whether the employees of
the new company are doing the same jobs in the same work-
ing conditions under the same supervisors; and whether the
new entity has the same production process, produces the
same products, and basically has the same body of customers.
. . . .
In conducting the analysis, the Board keeps in mind the ques-
tion whether “those employees who have been retained will
understandably view their job situations as essentially unal-
tered.” See Golden State Bottling Co., 414 U.S. at 184, 94
S.Ct. at 425.
Here, the record shows that Dearborn did not completely close
its doors on April 19, 2001, but that it continued to operate with
about five or six employees in order to finish its production
commitments. For example, Desmond Hanson, a production
employee, continued to work for Dearborn until June 26, 2001.
Another employee, Ed Wojtan worked for Dearborn until May
19, 2001.
On May 10, 2001, Precision came into existence with the
signing of its articles of organization (CP Exh. 5). On May 11,
2001, the Operating Agreement of Precision was signed by its
organizers, including Ellstrom as president. On July 16, 2001,
Precision began its operations, with the employment of several
Dearborn employees at the same location as Dearborn with the
same machines and equipment. Ellstrom was the president of
Dearborn and is the president of Precision. William Valentine
was vice president for operations at Dearborn and is the same at
Precision. On August 6, 2001, the number of production em-
ployees at Precision had increased to 12, all of who had been
employed as unit employees at Dearborn. (GC Exh. 34.) They
perform the same work and are employed in the same capaci-
ties as they did at Dearborn. For example, Richard Fraser
worked as bench hand at both entities, Dan Hale as lap hand,
Jim Mecklenburg as lathe hand, and Steve Mesino as surface
grinder etc. (GC Exhs. 10, 34.) By August 17, 2001, Precision
employed 16 production employees, all except 2 had come
from Dearborn.
Even the majority of the professional and clerical positions,
which were nonunit employees, came from Dearborn. More
precisely, the record shows the identities and the job titles of
the 16 professional employees, including the president and vice
president, at Precision who held similar positions at Dearborn.
The products of Precision are the same as those produced by
Dearborn, they are manufactured by the same machines, by the
same process, and sold to the same customers. Documentary
evidence, as well as the testimony of Ellstrom, show that pur-
suant to a bill of sale, dated December 5, 2001, Dearborn’s
machinery was sold to Precision, and that the list of assets and
equipment at Precision at its new location at N. Haggerty Road
in Canton was identical to the equipment at Dearborn, except
for two items, namely a compressor and air conditioner. (GC
Exh. 30.) Moreover, the products, which Precision manufac-
tures on the equipment, are the same as those produced by
Dearborn. They are precision gages used in the automobile
industry. The record reveals in great detail that Dearborn and
Precision produced such items as electronic fixture gages, func-
tional fixture gages, air electronic fixture gages, open orifice air
spindles, rings, and snaps, as well as indicator fixture gages,
and Datastar gauging and computer gauging SPS systems. (GC
Exh. 21.) Finally, the suppliers and customers are virtually the
same. The record shows the identity of 112 customers of Preci-
sion who, with the exception of Pullman, were also customers
of Dearborn (GC Exh. 24). Similarly, Precision received prod-
ucts from the same 54 suppliers who also supplied their prod-
ucts to Dearborn. (GC Exhs. 12, 35.)
Accordingly, I find that the record fully supports the allega-
tions in the complaint that Precision is a successor employer to
Dearborn. Fall River Dying Corp. v. NLRB, 482 U.S. at 43.
Precision has accordingly an obligation to recognize and bar-
gain with the Union. The Respondent was well aware of the
Union’s persistent efforts to bargain since it first learned of
Dearborn’s plant closure and certainly from the Union’s formal
request of October 17, 2001. Its refusal and failure to bargain
violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. MV Transportation,
337 NLRB 770 (2002).
The General Counsel and the Union further submit that Pre-
cision is a “perfectly clear” successor to Dearborn under Bums,
supra, prohibiting the successor from unilaterally changing the
employees’ working conditions. Under the “perfectly clear”
doctrine, an employer may have clearly expressed to the em-
ployees its intent to keep them employed in the unit at the suc-
cessor company. In this regard, the record shows that Ellstrom
and Valentine had told several employees during the wind-
down period at Dearborn that they might be retained as em-
ployees. For example, Ed Wojtan, employed by Dearborn as
laborer until May 19, 2001, testified that Ellstrom and Valen-
tine told him and Steve Mersino repeatedly that they would be
rehired by the new company. But he also testified that, aside
from a temporary paint job, he was never rehired by Precision.
Desmond Hanson, employed in the balance department for air
gauging, similarly testified that Ellstrom indicated to him and
others that he was looking into getting some investors inter-
ested in getting another company going. Hanson and Mersino
were rehired by Precision following a 5-week hiatus between
the layoff from Dearborn and employment at Precision. Hanson
had repeated contacts with Valentine or Ellstrom during that
period and was told to stay in contact because things were pro-
gressing to get a new company going. When he reported for
duty at Precision, he, like other employees, filled out an em-
ployment application form. (GC Exh. 19.)
While the record does not show that Respondent Precision
communicated to its work force that it would condition their
employment at Precision on changed working condition, it also
does not show that it expressed its intent to retain a majority of
the Dearborn employees. The vague assurances made by Ell-
strom and Valentine to the two or three employees (one of
whom was not retained) is not sufficient to show the Respon-
DEARBORN GAGE CO. 747
dent’s intent to retain the predecessor’s employees. Indeed, at
the time Dearborn was winding down its business and was
controlled by the Bank, management had no assurance that
investors would ultimately support the continuation of the busi-
ness, so that management was hardly in a position to make any
assurances to the employees of their continued employment.
Moreover, the Respondent altered the working conditions for
the employees. For example, at the time employees were hired
they were only informed of their hourly wages, which in some
instances were different from those at Dearborn, and that they
would receive some type of health care coverage, which was
not necessarily the same as that at Dearborn. Precision distrib-
uted its policy manual at a meeting on August 23, 2001, which
reflected the changed working conditions for the employees.
(GC Exh. 20.) At that time Precision had not yet rehired its full
complement of employees. Although the record clearly shows
that Precision was a successor to Dearborn, I cannot find that it
is a “perfectly clear” successor as defined by Board law. While
the Respondent is not required to continue the preexisting terms
and conditions of employment, it has an obligation to recognize
and bargain with the Union, UAW Local 157, as the exclusive
representative of the unit, “all production and maintenance
employees employed at the [company’s location], including
shipping and receiving employees, and truck drivers; but ex-
cluding office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.”
Ellstrom, as president of Dearborn and Precision, was fully
aware of the unfair labor practices of both entities. Precision is
accordingly liable for all violations of the Act. Golden State
Bottling Co. v. NLRB, 414 U.S. 168 (1973).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. At all material times, Respondent Dearborn has been an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. At all material times, Respondent Precision has been an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
3. At all material times, the Charging Union has been a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act, and
has been the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
the employees of the Respondent, in the following unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees employed by Re-
spondent at its facility, including shipping and receiving em-
ployees, and truck drivers; but excluding office clerical em-
ployees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
4. Respondent Dearborn closed its plant without giving prior
notice to the Union and without giving the Union an opportu-
nity to bargain about the effects of the plant closure, in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
5. Respondent Dearborn and Respondent Precision violated
Section 8(1) and (5) of the Act, by failing and refusing to com-
ply with the Union’s information requests of April 20 and Oc-
tober 17, 2001, which related to the Union’s performance of its
duties as the exclusive bargaining representative of the unit.
6. Respondent Precision, as successor to Respondent Dear-
born failed and refused to recognize and bargain with the Union
as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees in
the unit described above, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5)
of the Act.
7. Respondent Precision was aware of the unfair labor prac-
tices of Respondent Dearborn and is responsible for the unlaw-
ful conduct.
8. The unfair labor practices affect commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in an unfair labor
practice within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act, it must be ordered to cease and desist therefrom, and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
It is necessary, in order to effectuate the purposes of the Act,
to require the Respondent to bargain with the Union concerning
the effects of the closing of its operation on its employees, and
to reduce to writing and execute an agreement as a result of the
bargaining. It is further necessary that the Respondent be or-
dered to comply with the Union’s information requests and to
recognize and bargain in good faith with the Union.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]