Dependable Building Maintenance Co.; Quality Building Maintenance Co.; And Metropolitan Building Maintenance Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 22, 1985

274 N.L.R.B. 216 (N.L.R.B. 1985)

216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Dependable Building Maintenance Company; Qual-
ity Building Maintenance Company; and Metro-
politan Building Maintenance Company and
Service Employees International Union, Local
No. 6. Case 19-CA-14961
22 February 1985
DECISION AND ORDER REMANDING
By CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
On 25 August 1983 Administrative Law Judge
Clifford H. Anderson issued the attached decision.
The Respondents filed exceptions and a supporting
brief, and the General Counsel filed a brief in sup-
port of the judge's decision.
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and
conclusions as modified.
We agree with the judge's finding that the Re-
spondents violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act when they implemented their final offers in
August 1982 before an impasse had occurred. In so
concluding, we find that the information the Union
had been requesting from the Respondents was rel-
evant to the negotiations, and that the Union did
not have this information for a sufficient period of
time before the Respondents implemented their
final offers. Moreover, we find that post-August
events are irrelevant to the issue of whether an
unfair labor practice occurred in August 1982.
Contrary to the judge, however, we conclude
that the issue of an alleged post-August 1982 im-
passe and the propriety of the Respondents' No-
vember 1982 and March 1983 reimplementations
should be decided now rather than at the compli-
ance stage, as this issue may affect the judge's
order for a return to the status quo ante as of
August 1982. Accordingly, we remand this issue to
the judge for consideration at this time and for
preparation of a supplemental decision. The judge
may, in his discretion, order a further hearing on
this issue if he deems it necessary to receive more
evidence.
ORDER
It is ordered that the administrative law judge
shall prepare and serve on the parties a supplemen-
tal decision containing such resolutions, findings,
conclusions, and recommendations as found neces-
sary consistent with the remand. Following service
of the supplemental decision on the parties, the
provisions of Section 102.46 of the National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations shall be ap-
plicable.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
CLIFFORD H ANDERSON, Administrative Law Judge I
heard this case in trial on April 19 and 20, 1983, in Seat-
tle, Washington, pursuant to a complaint and notice of
hearing issued on October 27, 1982, by the Regional Di-
rector for Region 19 of the National Labor Relations
Board based on a charge filed on September 9, 1982, by
Service Employees International Union, Local No 6 (the
Union) against Dependable Building Maintenance Com-
pany (Dependable), Quality Building Maintenance Com-
pany (Quality), and Metropolitan Building Maintenance
Company (Metropolitan and, collectively with Dependa-
ble and Quality, Respondent).
The complaint, as amended, alleges and the answer, as
amended, denies that Respondents unilaterally changed
the working conditions of their employees represented
by the Union at a time when no impasse existed in bar-
gaining thus violating Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act (Act)
All parties were given full opportunity to participate
at the hearing, to introduce relevant evidence, to call, ex-
amine, and cross-examine witnesses, to argue orally, and
to file posthearing briefs
On the entire record herein, including the very helpful
briefs of the General Counsel and Respondents, and from
my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I
make the following
FINDINGS OF FACTS'
1. JURISDICTION
Respondents, and each of them, are State of Washing-
ton corporations with places of business in King County,
Washington, where they are engaged in the business of
providing building maintenance and related services. In
the course of their business operations, Respondents, and
each of them, annually purchase and receive at their
Washington state locations goods and services of a value
in excess of $50,000 either directly from outside the State
of Washington or from their suppliers who in turn ob-
tained goods and materials directly from sources outside
the State.
H. LABOR ORGANIZATION STATUS
The Union is and has been at all times material a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Background
Respondents have for many years bargained with the
Union concerning their employees in the following units
which are admittedly appropriate for purposes of collec-
' There were few critical disputes of fact involved herein Where not
specifically noted these findings are based on the pleadings, stipulations
of the parties, and uncontested documentary and testimonial evidence
274 NLRB No. 37
DEPENDABLE MAINTENANCE CO
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 of the
Act
All employees engaged in the work classification of
janitor, traveling waxer/shampooer and foreperson.
These employees work in various buildings in King and
Snohomish Counties in Washington. Before 1976 Re-
spondents negotiated individual contracts with the
Union. In 1976 Respondents were members of a multiem-
ployer association, the Maintenance Contractors Associa-
tion (the Association), which negotiated a multiemployer
contract with the Union. In 1979 bargaining was again
on a single employer basis for each Respondent but was
concurrent with bargaining by other Association mem-
bers and identical contracts were entered into by the As-
sociation members including Respondents These con-
tracts expired on April 30, 1982
B. Bargaining in 1982
The Union and six Association members including Re-
spondents met in coordinated single employer bargaining
in 1982. The Union was represented by its president,
Marc Earls, and the six employers by Eugene Nielsen,
labor counsel Bargaining proceeded through April 19822
with numerous meetings, requests for information by the
Union and the supplying of information to the Union by
the employers, discussion of proposals, and some changes
of positions by the parties.
After the April 28 meeting the employers proposed a
bifurcated or double tiered wage system with a lower
wage rate in suburban areas. The Union did not respond
to the employers' wage proposal At the next session,
May 3, Earls requested various information in writing
from each employer on the specific locations of buildings
served by unit employees and information on staffing
within and without the separate rate areas. Nielsen re-
garded the Union's request as a delaying tactic and the
parties thereafter exchanged missives. Nielsen by letter
dated May 3 supplied certain of the information request-
ed by the Union. Earls responded the same date with a
letter asking for more information including, inter alia,
the names and addresses of locations serviced with the
wage areas as well as the name of employees who
worked at each location. By letter dated May 4 Nielsen
responded with certain additional information but stated
that the specific locations of the buildings serviced by
the employers and names of employees working in them
would not "be forthcoming because the information the
employers have provided is sufficient for your purposes "
By letter dated May 5 , Earls responded noting that the
Union needed the specific information requested to
evaluate the employers' two-tiered wage proposal and to
ascertain its specific effect on particular employees.
The parties agreed to proceed with negotiations be-
tween the Union and Aetna, who had been one of the six
employers involved to this point. Negotiations with
other Employers , including Respondents, were to await
developments in the Aetna bargaining. Negotiations be-
tween Aetna and the Union involving the same individ-
2 All dates hereinafter refer to 1982 unless otherwise noted
217
uals took place on May 5 and 18. During this time Aetna
supplied the Union with information previously request-
ed in the form the Union requested With the assistance
of a Federal mediator, bargaining extended into June and
July. These negotiations culminated in an agreement be-
tween Aetna and the Union which was signed on July 8
Another employer, Star, soon thereafter agreed to adopt
the Aetna agreement . The Union had earlier reached
agreement with a major employer in the industry, ABM.
The Aetna and ABM contracts each contained a two-tier
wage system The ABM contract also contained what is
commonly referred to as a "most favored nation" clause
providing that the contracting employer would benefit
from more favorable contract terms negotiated by the
Union with other employers.
On June 25, Nielson on behalf of Respondents wrote a
letter to Earls. The letter noted that the Union had re-
quested specific information on building locations, em-
ployee names, and work hours but that the employers re-
garded the information as "highly confidential " The
letter further disputed the Union's need for the informa-
tion in light of its agreement with ABM and its similar
proposals to Aetna. The letter concluded by noting that
if the Union explained further its need for the data the
employers would "further consider whether to supply it
to you "
On July 13 negotiations resumed concerning Dependa-
ble. Present were Earls, Nielsen, and representatives of
each Respondent. Little progress was made. Nielsen
pressed Earls to make a full proposal Earls contended
that the Union could not formulate economic proposals
without the data previously requested and denied. Niel-
sen reiterated that the requested information was unnec-
essary for the Union and that the Union was not in fact
willing to agree to a contract other than that previously
negotiated by Aetna or ABM. Earls disputed this. It was
agreed to postpone the Quality negotiations then sched-
uled to be held the next day and rather to meet on July
29.
The parties thereafter exchanged additional corre-
spondence. By letter dated July 21, Earls again requested
of Nielsen the information previously sought stating that
it was required to allow the Union to prepare its eco-
nomic proposals. The letter noted that Respondents'
wage proposals were different from those in either the
Aetna or ABM agreements and therefore the requested
data remained necessary to the Union. The letter also
modified the Union' s position on certain noneconomic
proposals. By letter dated July 28, Nielsen responded ac-
cepting some of the Union's proposals, accepting certain
proposals conditionally, and changing some of Respond-
ents' own proposals Enclosed with the letter was a com-
plete proposed contract incorporating all of Respond-
ents' then outstanding proposals. The letter further noted
that unless the Union submitted a written statement out-
lining significant changes in its position by 5 p.m. on
August 4, Dependable "will conclude you are unwilling
to move." The letter enclosed updated information of the
type previously provided regarding location of work in
or out of the two wage areas but again noted that Re-
spondents would not provide the Union with the names
218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of buildings, i.e., their specific locations, or employee
names as previously requested by the Union.
On August 5, Nielsen wrote again to Earls. The timing
of the receipt of this letter is discussed , infra . The letter
announced that since the Union had not responded to the
previous August 4 "deadline," Dependable was now con-
sidering its previously delivered complete contract pro-
posal, with but a single minor change, as a final offer.
Enclosed with the letter was the building location and
employee information previously sought by the Union
"in the form you requested " The data was specifically
submitted for Earls' personal review only.3 The letter
contained the following concluding paragraphs:
In view of the obvious impasse in the negotia-
tions, Dependable has decided to implement its final
offer However, Dependable will delay implementa-
tion if you will give the written response specified
in my letter of July 28, 1982 by noon, Tuesday,
August 10, 1982.
If its offer is implemented, the wages and benefits
portions would be retroactive to August 1, 1982,
the remainder will be effective as of August 11,
1982.
Dependable through Nielsen prepared and had hand-
delivered to Earls' office a second letter dated August
10. It noted that the "deadline of today noon" for a
union response had passed. It continued, "Therefore, De-
pendable is implementing its final offer as to wages and
benefits effective August 1, 1982 and as to all other parts
of the proposal effective as of noon today "
Earls testified without contradiction that he did not
personally discover either Nielsen's August 5 or August
10 letter until the early afternoon of August 10 when he
came into the office. Earls responded to those two letters
by letter dated August 11, in which he indicated that he:
(1) had not had enough time to consider the information
submitted, (2) objected to the Employer's conditions for
meeting again , and (3) protested any implementation of
the purported final offer.
On August 11, Nielsen, on behalf of Metropolitan and
separately on behalf of Quality, wrote to Earls His es-
sentially identical letters stated that each employer was
making the same offer as that made by Dependable The
letters also supplied the same union-requested informa-
tion as that supplied by Dependable-with the same re-
strictions on use-and told Earls that each employer "as-
sumes you will take the same position on its offer that
you have taken on Dependable's, unless you deliver to
me by noon on Thursday, August 12, 1982, a written
statement stating a different position." On August 13,
Nielsen, again separately on behalf of Metropolitan and
Quality, wrote to Earls informing him that since his
letter of August 11 had not been answered by the Union,
the two employers' final offers were being implemented
in part effective August 1 and in part effective August
13. The parties thereafter exchanged various contending
and challenging letters reasserting the correctness of
their own position in the matter and the error of the
other's position The implementation of the last offers has
not been rescinded
Further negotiations between the parties, the furnish-
ing of additional information in response to requests, and
the exchange of additional letters occurred during the re-
mainder of 1982 and extended at least into March 1983
No agreement has been reached. On November 2, 1982,
and March 18, 1983, Nielsen wrote to Earls indicating
the Respondents were reimplementing the final offers of
August 1982 retroactively to August 1
C Analysis and Conclusions
1 Positions of the parties
The complaint in this matter is extremely narrow and
alleges only the August 1982 implementation of the final
offers by each Respondent as a violation of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. The theory of the General
Counsel is that the information requested by the Union,4
which was not supplied to the Union until just before the
implementation of the last offers, was necessary to allow
the Union to formulate a bargaining position and that, as
a consequence of Respondents' failure to timely supply
the information, no impasse occurred in bargaining be-
tween the parties before the implementation of the last
offers. Without an impasse, argues the General Counsel,
the changes in working conditions in August 1982 by
each Respondent violate Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.
Respondents argue that the information requests of the
Union were no more than a sham and subterfuge de-
signed by the Union to conceal its rigid intention to
accept no contract from Respondents different from the
ABM or Aetna agreements. Relying primarily on evi-
dence of subsequent negotiations, Respondents argue that
there was no movement by or even a differing proposal
offered by the Union before August on economic issues
and, further, that, after the requested information was
supplied to the Union in the form requested, there was
still no flexibility demonstrated by the Union. From this
factual pattern, Respondents seek, first, to show the im-
materiality of the requested information in light of the
hidden agenda of the Union; second, that an impasse in
bargaining actually was in existence in August; and third,
that, even if the August implementations were improper,
they were cured by their subsequent reimplementations
in November 1982 and March 1983 at which time an im-
passe surely existed.
Counsel for the General Counsel both at the hearing
and on brief opposed the consideration of postimplemen-
tation bargaining evidence. She argued that post-August
1982 events are irrelevant to the issue of an August 1982
violation-the only violation alleged in the complaint
She also argued that, even if the post-August events are
to be considered relevant to remedy there are two sepa-
rate, independent reasons for rejecting them at an initial
unfair labor practice hearing. First, she asserts the post-
3 Earls had previously pledged to review the requested data personally
and not disclose it to others Dependable's letter specifically relied on this
pledge in submitting the data for Earls' "eyes only "
4 The complaint does not allege a refusal to furnish information as an
independent violation of the Act
DEPENDABLE MAINTENANCE CO
August evidence would only be relevant to the liquida-
tion of the remedy and thus would be properly consid-
ered only in the later compliance stage of the proceed-
ings . Second, she argues that the post-August negotia-
tions are irrelevant because, given the August illegal im-
plementation , no legitimate impasse or untainted bargain-
ing could thereafter occur unless and until the status quo
ante has been restored by Respondents , i e., until the uni-
lateral changes had been rescinded and previous benefits
restored Thus, in the General Counsel's view, unless and
until Respondents restore the pre-August working condi-
tions, negotiations must remain tainted and no good-faith
negotiations could take place or an impasse occur.
2. The propriety of the mid -August 1982
implementations of the last offers
Counsel for the General Counsel has marshaled a host
of cases in a scholarly presentation which easily estab-
lished the following elements of her case, which ele-
ments Respondents generally did not contest First, the
information requested by the Union was relevant to its
collective-bargaining negotiations with Respondents.
Second , the information requested was not so confiden-
tial that it could properly be withheld by Respondents
from the Union under the circumstances present here,
particularly where the Union agreed to keep the infor-
mation confidential and severely limit its use . Third,
unless and until an impasse had been reached in negotia-
tions in August 1982, it was improper for Respondents to
unilaterally implement their last offers.
Respondents emphasize the conventional notion that
unilateral changes are permissible if they involve the im-
plementation of a last offer during a bargaining impasse.
Respondents strongly argue there was such an impasse in
mid-August . This argument is based on the proposition
that the information requests of the Union were but sham
and subterfuge to delay negotiations and prevent Re-
spondents from implementing their last offer. Thus, the
requested information was irrelevant to the impasse issue.
Respondents advance the view that the Union was
bound by the most-favored-nation clauses in its other
contracts and therefore would accept from Respondents
no less than what was contained in those contracts. In
that light , any and all requests for information-and the
concomitant refusal to provide, or the last-minute provi-
sion of the information-are irrelevant to the true issues
at the bargaining table or the existence of an impasse. ,
I have considered Respondents' contentions in light of
the entire bargaining sequence and find there is simply
insufficient evidence to convince me that, as of mid-
August 1982, the Union was not entitled to the informa-
tion it sought prior to making its economic proposals at
least for a period longer than that provided by each Re-
spondent before the implementation of its final offer.
There is insufficient evidence to conclude that the
Union's requests as of mid-August were not sincere or
were interjected solely for delay I make this finding
even given the lack of movement in later negotiations
after the information had been supplied . Respondents
simply acted too quickly in implementing the last offer
to place their theory of the Union 's bargaining rigidity to
the test The delivery of the requested information was
219
followed essentially without delay by the implementation
of the final offers Thus it is impossible to determine if
the information would in fact have been used by the
Union to modify its position This uncertainty must be
resolved against Respondents whose precipitous actions
created uncertainty The lack of changes in the Union's
position in bargaining after the imposition of the unilater-
al change does not change this finding. This is so be-
cause the postimplementation bargaining took place in
the context of the implementation and the Union's pro-
test of it . Thus the later bargaining , even disregarding
the post facto aspects of the evidence, cannot be held to
be a fair indicium of preimplementation union motiva-
tions. Since the implementation was made at a time when
the Union could still be fairly considering its proposals
on economic items in a new contract , there is no doubt
and I find that the last offers were implemented, in each
case, before there was an impasse in bargaining. I find
therefore that each Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) by making the August changes in unit employees'
working conditions
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in unfair
labor practices, I shall order each to cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act including the posting of
remedial notices . Because employees work in many fa-
cilities not under the control of Respondents and do not
work at the Respondents ' offices, I shall also require
each Respondent to mail to its unit employees copies of
the appropriate notice
Respondents contend on brief "[i]n the event Respond-
ents are found to have too hastily implemented their
offers in August, that was remedied by the reimplemen-
tation in November 1982 and again in March 1983" at
which time the parties were clearly at impasse . Thus no
restoration of the status quo ante, or indeed any remedy
other than a notice, is appropriate in Respondents' view.
The General Counsel contends that after a wrongful uni-
lateral change by an employer there must be a return to
the status quo ante before subsequent negotiations may
be held ripen to impasse absent an agreement . Since it is
undisputed that no agreement has been reached between
any Respondent and the Union or that any Respondent
has restored the working conditions changed in August
1982, the General Counsel argues that later bargaining
could not change or diminish a normal status quo ante
order
While the cases are not free from difficulty in this
area, I am persuaded by Respondents' cited case, NLRB
v. Cauthorne Trucking, 691 F.2d 1023 (D.C. Cir. 1982),
that a restoration of the status quo ante is not a necessary
prerequisite to a subsequent bargaining impasse in all sit-
uations . I find therefore that an examination of the post-
August 1982 bargaining would be appropriate to deter-
mine if a subsequent impasse occurred as contended by
Respondents if an unconditional remedial order requiring
a restoration of status quo ante to date were at issue.
The General Counsel argues further however that
such post-August 1982 events and their consideration as
220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to remedy must be deferred to the compliance stage of
these proceedings and, if necessary, at a second hearing
on the issue of remedy Thus, counsel for the General
Counsel argues on brief.
Even if Respondents' argument that an impasse
occurred in negotiations after Respondents' unilater-
al implementation is assumed to be true, and Re-
spondents properly implemented their offers at
some later time, the argument would have rel-
evance only to the issue of the calculation of reme-
dial backpay or benefits, not to the issue of whether
Respondents implemented their offers when there
was no impasse.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 Respondent, and each of them, are employers en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2),
(6), and (7) of the Act.
2 The Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act
3. At all times material herein, the Union has been and
is now the exclusive bargaining representative of Re-
spondents' employees in the following described single
employer units which are appropriate within the mean-
ing of Section 9 of the Act
All employees engaged in the work classifications
of janitor, traveling waxer/shampooer and foreper-
son
The Board has traditionally acquiesced in the General
Counsel's desire to limit initial unfair labor practice liti-
gation to the consideration of the existence of a violation
and to address the effect of post-unfair labor practice
events on the ordered remedy in a second hearing as
necessary The United States Courts of Appeals have en-
forced such Board decisions. See, e.g., NLRB v. Plumb-
ers Local 403 (Pullman Power), 710 F.2d 1418 (9th Cir.
1983), enfg. 261 NLRB 257 (1982), NLRB v. Trident Sea-
foods Corp., 642 F.2d 1148 (9th Cir. 1981), enfg. 244
NLRB 566 (1979) 1 shall therefore not consider the issue
of whether or not there was a post-August bargaining
impasse or the propriety of the November 1982 or
March 1983 reimplementation of the last offer. Nor shall
I consider their possible effects on the status quo ante
remedy ordered herein. I shall order Respondents to re-
store the status quo ante to maintain that status until Re-
spondents negotiate in good faith with the Union to a
new agreement or bargain to an impasse. I do not decide
here if such an impasse has already been reached. In the
event there is a continuing dispute regarding when or if
an impasse existed and the consequences of that fact on
the remedy ordered herein, that dispute will be resolved
in the compliance stage of this proceeding. Thus, the
remedy issues raised by Respondents turning on post-
August 1982 events are reserved for a later date.
The status quo ante order requires restoration of all
terms and conditions of unit employees discontinued in
August 1982 including wages and benefits as well as
fringe benefit trust payments Interest on payments to
employees shall accrue interest as set forth in Florida
Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977). See also Isis Plumbing
Co, 138 NLRB 716 (1962). Interest and other special
make-whole requirements with respect to the contractual
fringe agreements shall be determined in accordance
with Merryweather Optical Co., 240 NLRB 1213 (1979).
The General Counsel also seeks an order requiring Re-
spondents to timely furnish relevant information if re-
quested by the Union in bargaining. Inasmuch as the
complaint did not allege any failure to timely supply in-
formation to the Union, I decline to include such a
remedy in the order
On these findings of fact and the entire record, I make
the following
4 On or about August 10, 1982, Respondent Dependa-
ble unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of em-
ployees in its single employer bargaining unit decribed
above at a time when no impasse had occurred in bar-
gaining with the Union thereby violating Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act.
5 On or about August 13, 1982, Respondent Metro-
politan unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of
employees in its single employer bargaining unit de-
scribed above at a time when no impasse had occurred in
bargaining with the Union thereby violating Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
6 On or about August 13, 1982, Respondent Quality
unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of employ-
ees in its single employer bargaining unit described
above at a time when no impasse had occurred in bar-
gaining with the Union thereby violating Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act.
7 The unfair labor practices described above in para-
graphs 4, 5, and 6 are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the Act.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I issue the following recommend-
ed5
ORDER
The Respondents, Dependable Building Maintenance
Company, Quality Building Maintenance Company and
Metropolitan Building Maintenance Company, their offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Unilaterally changing unit employees' terms and
conditions of employment during bargaining with the
Union at a time when the parties have not reached an
impasse or a new agreement.
(b) In any like or related manner violating the provi-
sions of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is nec-
essary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
5 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations , the findings , conclusions , and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses
DEPENDABLE MAINTENANCE CO
(a) Restore unit employees ' terms and conditions of
employment to the level in existence before the August
1982 changes and continue them in effect unless or until
a new agreement is reached with the Union or an im-
passe is reached in bargaining.
(b) Make employees whole for the losses they incurred
as a result of the August 1982 unilateral changes in
working conditions including appropriate fringe trusts,
with appropriate interest as described in the section of
this decision entitled "The Remedy."
(c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying , all pay-
roll records , social security payment records , timecards,
personnel records and reports, and all other records nec-
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order
(d) Post at its facility copies of the attached notice
marked "Appendix A, B, or C" as appropriate for each
Respondents Copies of the notice , on forms provided by
the Regional Director for Region 19, after being signed
by its authorized representative , shall be posted immedi-
ately upon receipt thereof and maintained for a period of
60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that the
notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by any other
material Further , copies of the appropriate notice shall
be mailed to all unit employees
(e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what Respondents have
done to comply
6 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 Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board "
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 violated the National Labor Relations Act and has
ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protec-
tion
To choose not to engage in any of these protect-
ed concerted activities.
The Service Employees International Union, Local
No 6 represents our employees in the following bargain-
ing unit-
221
All employees engaged in the work classifications
of janitor , traveling waxer/shampooer and foreper-
son.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally change unit employees'
terms and conditions of employment during bargaining
with the Union at a time when the parties have not
reached an impasse in bargaining.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner violate
the terms of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL make unit employees whole for the losses
they incurred as a result of the unilateral changes in
working conditions we made in August 1982, including
appropriate fringe trust contributions , and WE WILL pay
appropriate interest as described in the judge's decision
WE WILL restore unit employees terms and conditions
to the level before the August 1982 changes and we will
continue those terms in force and effect until an agree-
ment is reached with the Union or an impasse is reached
in bargaining.
DEPENDABLE BUILDING MAINTENANCE
COMPANY
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 violated the National Labor Relations Act and has
ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, join , or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protec-
tion
To choose not to engage in any of these protect-
ed concerted activities
The Service Employees International Union, Local
No. 6 represents our employees in the following bargain-
ing unit.
All employees engaged in the work classifications
of janitor , traveling waxer/shampooer and foreper-
son.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally change unit employees'
terms and conditions of employment during bargaining
with the Union at a time when the parties have not
reached an impasse in bargaining.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner violate
the terms of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL make unit employees whole for the losses
they incurred as a result of the unilateral changes in
working conditions we made in August 1982, including
222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
appropriate fringe trust contributions , and WE WILL pay
appropriate interest as described in the judge's decision.
WE WILL restore unit employees terms and conditions
to the level before the August 1982 changes and we will
continue those terms in force and effect until an agree-
ment is reached with the Union or an impasse is reached
in bargaining.
QUALITY BUILDING MAINTENANCE COM-
PANY
APPENDIX C
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
ordered us to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.
To organize
To form, .join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives
of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protec-
tion
To choose not to engage in any of these protect-
ed concerted activities
The Service Employees International Union, Local
No. 6 represents our employees in the following bargain-
ing unit:
All employees engaged in the work classifications
of janitor , traveling waxer/shampooer and foreper-
son
WE WILL NOT unilaterally change unit employees'
terms and conditions of employment during bargaining
with the Union at a time when the parties have not
reached an impasse in bargaining.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner violate
the terms of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL make unit employees whole for the losses
they incurred as a result of the unilateral changes in
working conditions we made in August 1982, including
appropriate fringe trust contributions , and WE WILL pay
appropriate interest as described in the judge's decision.
WE WILL restore unit employees terms and conditions
to the level before the August 1982 changes and we will
continue those terms in force and effect until an agree-
ment is reached with the Union or an impasse is reached
in bargaining.
METROPOLITAN BUILDING MAINTENANCE
COMPANY