E. G. Sprinkler Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 31, 1990

300 N.L.R.B. 1175 (N.L.R.B. 1990)

1175
300 NLRB No. 165
E. G. SPRINKLER CORP.
1 In Case 3–CA–10974, the Board found that the Union was the 9(a) bar-
gaining representative for the employees of Respondents E. G. Sprinkler Cor-
poration (EG) and Goodman Piping Products, Inc. (GPP). The Respondents ex-
cept to the judge’s extension in Case 3–CA–13454 of that status to the Union
in its relationship with Respondent Goodman Automatic Sprinkler Corporation
(GAS). The Respondents contend that John Deklewa & Sons, 282 NLRB 1375
(1987), governs the Union’s representative status in Case 3–CA–13454. We
disagree.
The Board’s decision in Case 3–CA–10974, E. G. Sprinkler Corp., 268
NLRB 1241 (1984), was enforced by the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, Goodman Piping Products v. NLRB, 741 F.2d 10 (1984).
The Board’s authority in supervising compliance with a court-enforced Board
Order requiring backpay encompasses the extension of liability to alter egos
of the original Respondent. See Cherokee Marine Terminal, 287 NLRB 1080,
1082–1083 (1988).
The Respondents admitted in Case 3–CA–13454 that GAS and James M.
Goodman are alter egos of EG and GPP. Accordingly, the Board’s authority
in effectuating compliance with the decision at 268 NLRB 1241 includes re-
quiring GAS to pay backpay under that decision.
Because the Respondents have not complied fully with the Board’s backpay
remedy in Case 3–CA–10974, that case has not been closed and backpay li-
ability continued to accrue while the Respondents operated their business.
When a pre-Deklewa Board Order finding contractual liability on the basis of
a 9(a) relationship with a union is enforced by a court, ‘‘[p]ayments for that
liability must be offered before the case can be closed on compliance.’’ De-
pendable Tile Co., 292 NLRB 1034 (1989). Accord: Fox Painting Co. v.
NLRB, 919 F.2d 53 (6th Cir. 1990). As Case 3–CA–10974 has never closed
on compliance, the Respondents’ liability has continued to run, and as GAS
and James M. Goodman are the same entity as the other Respondents, their
liability stems from and runs under the Board’s decision in Case 3–CA–10974.
2 The interest on payments provided for in the judge’s recommended Order
shall be paid in accordance with New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB
1173 (1987). Any additional amounts due the benefit funds shall be deter-
mined by the procedure set forth in Merryweather Optical Co., 240 NLRB
1213, 1216 fn. 7 (1979).
1 No monetary remedy is sought against James Goodman as an individual
for any liability which arose prior to March 26, 1985, as Goodman was dis-
charged as a debtor by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western
District of New York on that date.
E. G. Sprinkler Corporation; Goodman Piping
Products, Inc., Goodman Automatic Sprinkler
Corporation; and James M. Goodman and
Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669,
U.A., AFL–CIO, affiliated with United Associa-
tion of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the
United States and Canada, AFl–CIO and
United Association of Journeymen and Ap-
prentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting In-
dustry of the United States and Canada, AFL–
CIO. Cases 3–CA–13454 and 3–CA–10974
December 31, 1990
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT AND OVIATT
On August 13, 1990, Administrative Law Judge
Wallace H. Nations issued the attached decision. The
Respondents filed exceptions and a supporting brief,
and the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed
response briefs.
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 and briefs and has de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and con-
clusions1 and to adopt the recommended Order.2
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondents, E. G. Sprinkler Corpora-
tion; Goodman Piping Products, Inc.; Goodman Auto-
matic Sprinkler Corporation; and James M. Goodman,
an Individual, Rochester, New York, their officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Order.
Michael Cooperman, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Jack D. Eisenberg, Esq., of Rochester, New York, for the
Respondents.
William W. Osborne, Jr., Esq., of Washington, D.C., for the
Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WALLACE H. NATIONS, Administrative Law Judge. On
October 1, 1986, a charge was filed in Case 3–CA–13454 by
Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669, U.A., AFL–CIO
(Union). Subsequently, the Regional Director for Region 3
issued a complaint, an amended complaint, and a second
amended complaint alleging that E. G. Sprinkler Corpora-
tion, Goodman Piping Products, Inc., Goodman Automatic
Sprinkler Corporation, and James M. Goodman, an individual
(respectively referred to as EG, GPP, GAS, and Goodman
and collectively as Respondents) were alter egos and that the
Union was the 9(a) representative of the Companies since
1979. The complaints further allege that GAS violated the
statute by failing to apply terms of a collective-bargaining
agreement that expired on March 31, 1985, to employees of
GAS, and failed to furnish the Union information requested
of it in or around August 1986. An amended compliance
specification was also issued seeking to extend liability for
monetary awards previously found owing in Case 3–CA–
10974 to GAS and Goodman.1 Moreover, the compliance
specification sought a monetary remedy from Respondents
stemming from the unilateral changes alleged in the com-
plaints.
By its answers to the complaint, amended complaint, and
second amended complaint, as well as its answer to the com-
pliance specification, Respondents denied the material allega-
tions of conduct violative of the National Labor Relations
Act (Act). Respondents also asserted that their relationship
with the Union was at all times material a relationship under
Section 8(f) of the Act, and, accordingly, there is and was
no collective-bargaining relationship with the Union for any
period of time after the expiration of the collective-bar-
gaining agreement on March 31, 1985. In addition, the an-
swer alleged there was no make-whole obligation for any pe-
riod of time in which Respondents and the Union were not
parties to a collective-bargaining agreement.
A hearing on these matters was held in Rochester, New
York, on May 29, 1990. At the hearing, Respondents admit-
1176 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2 EG ceased operations on December 31, 1981. GPP was subsequently oper-
ated, and it, itself, ceased operations in December 1984. Subsequently, EG and
GPP were liquidated in chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. The estates of the
two Companies were closed on August 16, 1985. See In Re: James M. Good-
man, Debtor, et al., Docket Nos. 88-5033, 5039, 5041, United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit, decided April 20, 1989.
3 The bargaining unit description remains unchanged. The involved collec-
tive-bargaining agreement remained in force from year to year thereafter un-
less written notice of modification was sent at least 60 days prior to April 1.
By letter dated February 1, 1985, GPP requested negotiations for modifications
of the agreement. The agreement expired on March 31, 1985.
ted all of the factual allegations contained in both the second
amended complaint issued in Case 3–CA–13454 and in the
compliance specification, as amended at the hearing, reserv-
ing as the sole issue for determination whether the principles
of John Deklewa & Sons, 282 NLRB 1375 (1987), are appli-
cable to the collective-bargaining relationship between the
Union and Respondents. Briefs addressing this issue were
filed by Respondents and General Counsel on or about June
28, 1990. Based on the entire record in this proceeding and
with consideration of the briefs filed, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondents collectively have admitted the factual allega-
tions of the second amended complaint including the juris-
dictional allegations, which I find as fact. Respondent EG, a
corporation, whose last known office and place of business
while doing business under the name of E. G. Sprinkler Cor-
poration was at 107 North Washington Street, East Roch-
ester, New York, was engaged in the installation, repair, and
maintenance of automatic sprinkler and fire protection sys-
tems in the Rochester, New York area, and at locations out-
side the State of New York. Respondent GPP, a corporation,
whose last known office and place of business while doing
business under the name Goodman Piping Products, Inc. was
at 325 Fairport Road, Pittsford, New York, was engaged in
the same business as Respondent EG within the same terri-
tory.
The Board and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in
prior decisions, E. G. Sprinkler Corp., 268 NLRB 1241
(1984), enfd. sub nom. Goodman Piping Products v. NLRB,
741 F.2d 10 (2d Cir. 1984), have previously determined that
GPP is the alter ego of EG and that they are a single em-
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act. Respondent GAS is a corporation
with an office and place of business located at 45 Crouch
Street, East Rochester, New York, where it is engaged in the
installation, repair, and maintenance of automatic sprinkler
and fire protection systems in the Rochester, New York
area.2
On or around June 28, 1985, Respondent GAS was estab-
lished by Respondent EG, Respondent GPP, and Respondent
Goodman as a subordinate instrument to, and a disguised
continuation of, Respondent EG and Respondent GPP. At all
times material, EG and its alter egos, GPP and GAS, have
been affiliated business enterprises commonly owned, prin-
cipally operated, controlled, directed, managed, supervised,
and dominated by Respondent Goodman. All Respondents
are now, and have been at all times material, employers en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
It was admitted and I find that the Union and United As-
sociation of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing &
Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL–
CIO are now and have been at all times material, labor orga-
nizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The second amended complaint alleges that Respondent
GAS and Respondents collectively have violated Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by:
1. Since the inception of GAS in June 1985, repudi-
ating the collective-bargaining agreement between the
Union and GAS predecessor Respondents, which ex-
pired on March 31, 1985, and by continuing to date to
fail and refuse to apply the terms of that agreement to
the employees of GAS and by unilaterally deviating
from the terms and conditions set forth in that agree-
ment.
2. Refusing since on or about August 5, 1986, to
supply the Union with requested information which is
necessary for and relevant to the Union’s performance
of its function as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of Respondents’ employees in the fol-
lowing appropriate unit:
All employees engaged in the installation, dismantling,
maintenance, repair, adjustments and corrections of all
fire protection and fire control systems with the excep-
tion of steam fire protection systems.
As noted earlier, in the prior proceeding in Case 3–CA–
10974, E. G. Sprinkler Corp., supra, the Board found that
GPP was the alter ego of EG and both were bound by the
contract between the Union and EG. At the hearing before
Administrative Law Judge D. Barry Morris which led to this
finding, the Respondents entered into certain stipulations
which are important in the instant proceeding. Paragraph VII
of the complaint in the earlier case alleged:
Since 1973, and at all times material herein, the
Union has been the designated exclusive collective-bar-
gaining representative of Respondent’s employees in
the unit described above in paragraph VI and since that
date the Union has been recognized as such representa-
tive by Respondent. Such recognition has been em-
bodied in successive collective-bargaining agreements,
the most recent of which was effective by its terms for
the period April 1, 1979, to April 1, 1982.3
Paragraph VIII of that complaint alleged:
At all times since 1973, the Union by virtue of Section
9(a) of the Act, has been, and is, the exclusive rep-
resentative of the employees in the unit described above
in paragraph VI, for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment.
1177E. G. SPRINKLER CORP.
4 The stipulations were made orally on the record at the hearing before
Judge Morris. The text of the stipulations is taken from the official transcript
of those proceedings.
5 E. G. Sprinkler Corp., 268 NLRB 1241 (1984), enfd. Goodman Piping
Product v. NLRB, 741 F.2d 10 (2d Cir. 1984).
In response to a request for a stipulation with respect to
paragraphs VII and VIII of the complaint, Respondents EG
and GPP, through Pheterson, their attorney, made the fol-
lowing stipulation:4
Well, all right. That is one of the problems, that
we—was [sic] we did not have the contract and I would
stipulate that with respect to Good—E. G. Sprinkler,
this is true, at least through December 31, 1981. I do
not believe my client signed any contract extending the
period of time to April 1, 1982, but he does acknowl-
edge that in 1981, E. G. Sprinkler was operating under
a collective bargaining agreement, whether signed or
not signed, but I cannot say to you that that agreement
extended beyond December 31, 1981, and can’t stipu-
late to that.
JUDGE MORRIS: So I understand that your stipulation
is that paragraph VII is correct through December 31,
1981.
MR. PHETERSON: As to E. G. Sprinkler only.
JUDGE MORRIS: That stipulation is accepted.
MR. NEWSOME (Counsel for General Counsel): That
is accepted. I will put the contract into evidence. And
paragraph VIII?
MR. PHETERSON: That, again, if it applies only to
E. G. Sprinkler through December 31, 1981, I would
stipulate to that.
In the instant proceeding, the Respondents stipulated, inter
alia, to the factual allegations of paragraphs II (e), (f), and
(g) of the second amended complaint, which read as follows:
(e) On or around June 28, 1985, Respondent GAS
was established by Respondent EG, Respondent GPP,
and Respondent Goodman as a subordinate instrument
to, and a disguised continuation of, Respondent EG and
Respondent GPP.
(f) At all times material herein, EG and its alter egos
GPP and GAS have been affiliated business enterprises
commonly owned, principally operated, controlled, di-
rected, managed, supervised and dominated by Re-
spondent Goodman.
(g) By virtue of the acts and conduct described in
paragraph II(e); by virtue of the Board Order, the judg-
ment of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, as de-
scribed in paragraph II(c),5 Respondents EG, GPP,
GAS and Goodman are, and have been at all times ma-
terial herein, alter egos and single employer within the
meaning of the Act.
On brief, the Respondents stated their defense to the alle-
gations of the complaints thusly. Respondents contend that
all times material, any relationship they may have had with
the Union was under Section 8(f) of the Act and that the
principles announced in John Deklewa & Sons, supra, are ap-
plicable. The prior Board and court proceedings do not pre-
clude applicability of the 8(f) defenses to the allegations of
the instant complaint. In Deklewa and subsequent cases, the
Board held that a union can achieve full 9(a) status in con-
struction industry bargaining relationships only through cer-
tification by a Board conducted representation election or a
union’s express demand for an employer’s voluntary grant of
recognition based on a simultaneous showing of majority
support. Respondents further contend that the admissions of
EG at the prior hearing before Judge Morris do not constitute
voluntary recognition based on an affirmative showing of
majority support, and that the Board’s Order in the prior case
need not be read as giving the Union full 9(a) rights, even
though the finding was made pre-Deklewa.
In this regard, Respondents argue that the Board only
found that the Union was the exclusive representative of the
employees involved and had status under Section 9. Re-
spondents contend that Deklewa is not inconsistent with this
finding. Deklewa provides that where there is an 8(f) rela-
tionship, the signatory union is deemed the exclusive rep-
resentative of the employees. It is also deemed to have a 9(a)
status as bargaining representative, albeit a limited one. Be-
cause in the prior case a collective-bargaining agreement was
in effect at all material times, it would not be inconsistent
with the prior order to apply Deklewa principles to the deter-
mination of the relationship of GAS, Goodman, and the
Union.
I cannot agree with the position of Respondents for the
reasons advanced by General Counsel on brief. The prior
proceeding was pre-Deklewa and the criteria for deciding
what constitutes voluntary recognition of the Union is not the
standard set out in Deklewa. There is nothing in facts found
in the prior Board decision to indicate that at any time in
which it was operating, E. G. Sprinkler did not have union
members as a majority of its employees in the bargaining
unit. General Counsel had alleged in paragraph VIII of the
complaint in that proceeding that the Union was the 9(a)
collective- bargaining representative of the employees of Re-
spondents in the involved unit. As set out completely above,
Respondents therein stipulated that the Union was the 9(a)
collective-bargaining representative as alleged in paragraph
VIII, with one limitation. The stipulation entered into by Re-
spondents regarding 9(a) status was specifically limited to
E. G. Sprinkler through 1981, a position consistent with Re-
spondent GPP’s position that it was not an alter ego of EG
and not bound by the collective-bargaining agreement be-
tween the Union and EG. Such qualifying language is irrele-
vant in light of the Board’s conclusion that both EG and
GPP were alter egos.
Once a determination had been made that E. G. Sprinkler
and Goodman Piping were alter egos, the stipulation that was
made as to 9(a) status with respect to E. G. Sprinkler be-
came equally applicable to Goodman Piping. Any other con-
clusion is logically inconsistent. Likewise, the stipulation as
to 9(a) status must be applied to subsequent alter egos Good-
man Automatic Sprinkler and James Goodman. The Board’s
Order in Case 3–CA–10974 presupposes the existence of a
9(a) bargaining relationship as it orders EG and GPP to rec-
ognize and bargain with the Union. The Board Order issued
prior to the Board’s decision in Deklewa; therefore, if the
Board had concluded that the contract in issue therein had
been an 8(f) contract, the Board would not have issued the
bargaining orders discussed above, since it was in Deklewa
that the Board first held that it would enforce an 8(f) con-
1178 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
6 See Schorr Stern Food Corp., 248 NLRB 292 (1980), citing Brown &
Root, Inc., 132 NLRB 486, 492 (1961), enfd. 311 F.2d 447, 451 (8th Cir.
1963).
7 The information sought, though relevant and necessary at the time, is no
longer necessary as GAS is no longer operating. Therefore, though a violation
is found, the remedy will not require production of this information.
8 It was stipulated at the hearing the following individuals should be elimi-
nated from the compliance specification: David Barley, Elgie Blocker, Randall
Christman, James Dennis, William Menzies, Christine Moffet, James Richard-
son, and Kenneth Schultz, Jr.
9 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules
and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as
provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objec-
tions to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
tract. Thus, the Board had to have found a 9(a) relationship
to justify its issuance of the earlier bargaining order.
The Board has consistently applied res judicata principles
in its proceedings where a respondent has entered into a stip-
ulation which is not contrary to the Act.6 In Academy of Art
College, 241 NLRB 454, 455 (1979), the Board stated:
‘‘These stipulations, once entered into evidence, constituted
a judicial admission of the Respondent’s part as to the facts
contained therein. Such an admission has the effect of a
confessory pleading, and its principal characteristic is that it
is conclusive upon the party making it.’’
As discussed above, at the hearing in Case 3–CA–10974,
E. G. Sprinkler stipulated that the Union was the exclusive
9(a) bargaining representative of its unit employees; no party
attempted to withdraw from that stipulation before the hear-
ing concluded, and no contrary evidence was adduced at the
hearing. The Board rendered a Decision and Order based on
that hearing in which it ordered Goodman Piping to bargain
with the Union as the 9(a) representative of its unit employ-
ees and the unfair labor practice issue cannot be relitigated.
See Schorr Stern Food Corp., 248 NLRB 292, 295 (1980).
The complaint in this case, 3–CA–13454, did not issue in a
vacuum, but is in my view a continuation of the prior pro-
ceeding in Case 3–CA–10974 as the Respondents, in chang-
ing forms, continue to refuse to heed the Board’s Order to
‘‘recognize and bargain collectively with the Union by ac-
knowledging that it is bound by the existing collective-bar-
gaining agreement between E. G. Sprinkler Corporation and
the Union.’’
By virtue of the stipulation at the prior hearing and the ad-
missions at the hearing in the instant proceeding, Respond-
ents Goodman and GAS have, as alter egos of EG and GPP,
succeeded to the responsibilities and liabilities of EG and
GPP and the Union enjoys full 9(a) status with respect to
them as bargaining representative of their employees in the
unit described. Therefore, Respondents had an obligation to
furnish the Union the information requested on or about Au-
gust 5, 1986, as alleged in the second amended complaint
and their failure and refusal to do so violates Section 8(a)(1)
and (5) of the Act.7 Likewise, as Respondent GAS and Re-
spondents collectively have continued and are continuing to
repudiate the terms and conditions of employment set forth
in the expired collective-bargaining agreement between Re-
spondents and the Union by failing to apply the terms of the
collective-bargaining agreement to the employees of Re-
spondent GAS and by unilaterally deviating from the terms
and conditions of employment set forth in that agreement,
Respondents have violated and continue to violate Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondents E. G. Sprinkler Corporation, Goodman
Piping Products, Inc., Goodman Automatic Sprinkler Cor-
poration and James Goodman, an individual, are employers
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondents Goodman Piping Products, Inc., Goodman
Automatic Sprinkler Corporation, and James Goodman, an
individual, are all alter egos of E. G. Sprinkler Corporation
and are a single employer engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. The Union and its affiliate, United Association of Jour-
neymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting In-
dustry of the United States and Canada, AFL–CIO, are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
4. The Union is the exclusive representative for purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a)
of the Act, of Respondents’ employees in the appropriate
unit, within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act, which
consists of:
All employees engaged in the installation, dismantling,
maintenance, repair, adjustments and corrections of all
fire protection and fire control systems with the excep-
tion of steam fire protection systems.
5. By failing to supply necessary and relevant information
requested by the Union on or about August 5, 1986, Re-
spondents have violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
6. By failing and refusing to apply the terms and condi-
tions of the collective-bargaining agreement between the Re-
spondents and the Union, which expired on March 31, 1985,
to the employees of Goodman Automatic Sprinkler Corpora-
tion, and by unilaterally deviating from the terms and condi-
tions of employment set forth in that agreement, Respondents
have violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
7. The unfair labor practices set out above constitute unfair
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents have engaged in unfair
labor practices, I recommend that they be ordered to cease
and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
I recommend that Respondents make whole the appro-
priate individuals for any losses they may have suffered by
reason of Respondents’ failure to honor the collective-bar-
gaining agreement with the Union, including benefit con-
tributions. The amounts of moneys owing are set forth in the
compliance specification, General Counsel Exhibits 1(z) and
4(a) and (b), as amended at the hearing.8 These exhibits are
incorporated herein by reference and made a part of this de-
cision as if typed herein.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on
the entire record, I issue the following recommended9
ORDER
The Respondents, E. G. Sprinkler Corporation, Goodman
Piping Products, Inc., Goodman Automatic Sprinkler Cor-
1179E. G. SPRINKLER CORP.
10 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of ap-
peals, the words in the notice reading ‘‘Posted by Order of the National Labor
Relations Board’’ shall read ‘‘Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United
States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board.’’
poration, and James Goodman, an individual, Rochester,
New York, their officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to supply information requested by the Union
which is relevant to, and necessary for, the Union’s perform-
ance of its function as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of Respondents’ employees in the appropriate
unit.
(b) Failing and refusing to apply the terms and conditions
of the collective-bargaining agreement between the Respond-
ents and the Union, which expired on March 31, 1985, to the
employees of Goodman Automatic Sprinkler Corporation,
and by unilaterally deviating from the terms and conditions
of employment set forth in that agreement.
(c) Refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union con-
cerning the wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of
employment of the employees in the appropriate unit de-
scribed in this decision.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, restrain-
ing, or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights
under Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Pay to the appropriate funds the contributions required
to be paid by the collective-bargaining agreement and make
the appropriate individuals whole for any losses they may
have suffered by reason of Respondents’ failure to honor the
collective-bargaining agreement and by Respondents unilat-
eral deviation from the terms and conditions set forth in that
agreement, with interest, in the manner set forth in the rem-
edy section of this decision.
(b) Recognize and bargain, on request, with the Union as
the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in
the appropriate unit described in this decision.
(c) On request, supply the Union with information relevant
to, and necessary for, the performance of its function as the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of Respond-
ents’ employees in the appropriate unit.
(d) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board
or its agents, for examination and copying, all payroll
records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel
records and reports, and all other records necessary to ana-
lyze the amounts owing under the terms of this Order.
(e) Post at their office copies of the attached notice
marked ‘‘Appendix.’’10 Copies of the notice on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 3, after being
signed by Respondents’ authorized representative, shall be
posted by Respondents immediately upon receipt, and be
maintained for 60 consecutive days, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are custom-
arily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondents
to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material. Because there is a possibility that Re-
spondents may no longer be engaged in business, it is further
directed that Respondents mail sufficient copies of this notice
to the office of the Union so that the Union may post this
notice where notices to members are customarily posted. Ad-
ditionally, Respondent is directed to mail a copy of this no-
tice to each individual shown on the compliance specifica-
tion, incorporated herein by reference, at their last known ad-
dress.
(f) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days
of the date of this Order what steps the Respondents have
taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us
to post and abide by this notice.
Section 7 of the Act gives you these rights.
To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives of
your own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected
concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT refuse to supply information requested by
Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669, U.A., AFL–CIO
affiliated with United Association of Journeymen and Ap-
prentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the
United States and Canada, AFL–CIO, which is relevant to,
and necessary for, the Union’s performance of its function as
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of our em-
ployees in the following appropriate unit:
All employees engaged in the installation, dismantling,
maintenance, repair, adjustments and corrections of all
fire protection and fire control systems with the excep-
tion of steam fire protection systems.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to apply the terms and con-
ditions of the collective-bargaining agreement between the
Union and ourselves, which expired on March 31, 1985, to
you, and WE WILL NOT unilaterally deviate from the terms
and conditions set forth in that agreement.
WE WILL NOT refuse to recognize and bargain with the
Union concerning the wages, hours, or other terms and con-
ditions of employment of our employees in the unit set out
above.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of your rights under
Section 7 of the Act.
1180 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
WE WILL pay to the appropriate union benefit funds the
contributions required to be paid by the collective-bargaining
agreement and make our employees in the unit described
above whole for any losses they may have suffered by reason
of our failure to honor the collective-bargaining agreement
and by our unilateral deviation from the terms and conditions
set forth in that agreement, with interest.
WE WILL on request, supply the Union with information
relevant to, and necessary for, the performance of its function
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of our
employees in the unit described above.
WE WILL recognize and bargain, on request, with the
Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of our em-
ployees in the unit described above.
E. G. SPRINKLER CORPORATION, GOODMAN
PIPING PRODUCTS, INC., AND ITS ALTER EGOS,
GOODMAN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER CORPORA-
TION, AND JAMES M. GOODMAN AN INDI-
VIDUAL