Electronic Products International Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 11, 1974

208 N.L.R.B. 350 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Electronic Products International Corporation and
Warehouse and Mail Order Employees Union,
Local 743, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of Ameri-
ca. Case 13-CA- 12023
January 11, 1974
ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
On May 31, 1973, Administrative Law Judge
Maurice S. Bush issued the attached Decision in this
proceeding. Thereafter, Charging Party filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.'
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders that the Respondent, Electronic
Products International Corporation, North Chicago,
Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the said recommend-
ed Order.
Member Fanning disavows any reliance on the Administrative Law
Judge 's finding that since the decision to move the production operation
was made for legitimate business or economic reasons the Union is not
entitled to an order requiring Respondent to bargain as to the decision to
close See his dissenting opinion in General Motors Corporation, GMC Truck
& Coach D,vision, 191 NLRB 951. However, since the complaint does not
allege that Respondent unlawfully refused to bargain as to the decision to
close and since that issue was not litigated at the hearing , Mr Fanning
agrees with his colleagues that it would be inappropriate to include in the
remedial order a requirement that Respondent bargain as to the decision to
close
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MAURICE S. BUSH, Administrative Law Judge: The
Respondent being under a bargaining order by virtue of an
order in a prior related proceeding , the sole issue in the
present matter is whether the Respondent is in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act
by its failure and refusal to bargain with the Union over
the effects on its employees of the closing of its principal
plant at Chicago, Illinois, and the transfer of its manufac-
turing operations to its coexixting plant in North Chicago,
Lake County, Illinois, some 35 miles from the city of
Chicago.
The complaint herein was issued on March 30, 1973,
pursuant to a charge filed on January 2, 1973, and an
amended charge filed on January 29, 1973, copies of which
were duly served on the Respondent
The case was tried on April 26 and 27, 1973, at Chicago,
Illinois. By agreement of the parties, the case was
submitted on oral argument presented at the conclusion of
the taking of testimony. However, after the trial , counsel
for the Union on May 11, 1973, filed a posttrial
memorandum together with a motion for leave that it be
received. The motion is granted. The oral argument in
behalf of the Respondent by Mr. Edward L. Cooper, Jr.,
appearing pro se as president of the Respondent, and the
oral arguments of counsel for General Counsel and the
Charging Party, together with the latter's posttrial memo-
randum, have been carefully reviewed and considered.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT AND
JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS
The Respondent, an Illinois corporation, has at all times
material herein up until January 29, 1973, maintained its
principal place of business at 2300 South King Drive,
Chicago, in Cook County, Illinois, where it engaged in the
manufacture of electronic parts. Similarly at all times
material herein , Respondent has also maintained a
coexisting electronic parts plant at North Chicago, in Lake
County, Illinois. On January 29, 1973, Respondent closed
its principal place of business and plant at Chicago and
moved all of its manufacturing operations to its North
Chicago plant where it continues to be engaged in the
manufacture of electronic parts.
Respondent, during its fiscal year ending January 31,
1972, a representative period, in the course and conduct of
its business operations, manufactured, sold, and shipped
products to and performed services for Automatic Electric
Company, Western Electric Company, and Universities
Research Associations, Inc., valued in excess of $50,000.
Automatic Electric Company, Western Electric Company,
and Universities Research Associations, Inc., each, annual-
ly, in the course and conduct of their operations, purchases
and ships goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000
from directly outside of the State of Illinois to their
business locations in Illinois, and each of these enterprises
is directly in interstate commerce.
208 NLRB No. 60
ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS INTL CORP 351
Respondent, during the same representative fiscal year,
in the course and conduct of its business operations,
manufactured, sold and shipped products to and per-
formed services for Ford Motor Company, Western
Electric Company, and General Motors Corporation,
jointly valued in excess of $50,000. Ford Motor Company,
Western Electric Company, and General Motors Corpora-
tion each, annually, in the course and conduct of their
operations, purchases and ships goods and materials
valued in excess of $50,000 from directly outside the State
of Illinois to their business locations in Illinois, and each of
these enterprises is directly in interstate commerce.'
Respondent has been at all times herein material and is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.2
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION
Warehouse and Mail Order Employees Union, Local
743, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, the Charging
Party herein, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.3
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and Chronology of Events
Edward L. Cooper, Jr., is the founder, president, and sole
stockholder of the Respondent, a manufacturer of elec-
tronic parts. From the start of his business at his home at
Prairie, Illinois, in 1967, he eventually moved his opera-
tions to a plant in Wheeling, Illinois, and thereafter in
January of 1971, from Wheeling to a plant in Chicago,
Illinois, which became his wholly owned Respondent's
principal place of business and manufacturing plant. In
April 1972, Cooper caused the Respondent to open a
second electronic parts manufacturing plant at North
Chicago, Illinois, a city some 35 miles north of the City of
Chicago with a population of about 47,000. At the trial
Cooper, a black man, frequently referred to the Respon-
dent as a "minority company" because, as he stated, it is "a
black-owned . . . and operated" company. The record
herein and a Board decision in a prior unfair labor case
shows that the Respondent has a history of being a
marginal business enterprise struggling to keep alive.
1 The above paragraph reflects an amendment of par 11(e) of the
complaint, the allegations of which the Respondent admitted orally at the
trial
2 As orally admitted by Respondent at the teal
3 As orally admitted by Respondent at the trial
4 By letter dated April 12, 1973, the Respondent asked the Board for a
30-day extension of time in which to file exceptions to Judge Maher's
Decision (G.C Exh. 3) The Board by its Associate Executive Secretary
denied the request under a letter dated April 18, 1973, on the ground that
the request was untimely filed and Respondent was informed that the Board
would proceed "in due course to issue an order adopting the
Administrative Law Judge's Decision and Recommended Order " (G C
Exh 4) Under letter dated April 23, 1973 (2 days before trial herein), the
Respondent renewed its request to the Board for an extension of time in
which to file exceptions to Judge Maher's Decision (Resp Exh I ) The
Board by letter dated May 2, 1973, denied the renewed request for the
extension on the ground that, "The reasons stated in your current letter with
respect to an opportunity to obtain counsel do not constitute such
extraordinary circumstances as to warrant waiving the Board' s rules in this
In June of 1972, the Union here involved sought to
organize the employees in Respondent's Chicago plant in
an appropriate unit described below. In the latter part of
June 1972, the Union filed unfair labor charges against
Respondent because of its conduct in connection with the
Union's efforts to organize Respondent's Chicago plant.
Based on such charges, a complaint was issued against the
Respondent in Case 13-CA-11616 in which Respondent
was charged with violations of Section 8(a)(l), (3), and (5)
of the Act. By its answer the Respondent denied the
commission of any unfair labor practices. After a full
hearing in the matter in December 1972, Administrative
Law Judge Maher issued his decision therein on March 23,
1973. (G.C. Exh. 5.)
In his Decision, Administrative Law Judge Maher
"found that Respondent has interfered with, restrained and
coerced its employees by threatening to move its plant, and
by offering and granting benefits in its efforts to thwart the
Union's organizational campaign, that it discriminatorily
laid off two of its employees and that it has refused to
bargain with the employees' duly designated bargaining
agent" and recommended "that Respondent cease and
desist from this conduct ...." In addition, among other
orders, he recommended, as here pertinent, an order that
the Respondent "bargain collectively with the Union as the
representative of its employees" in the involved appropri-
ate unit which by stipulation in both the case before
Administrative Law Judge Maher and in the instant
proceeding is established to consist of "All full time and
regular part-time production, maintenance and warehouse
employees employed by Respondent at its Chicago, Illinois,
location, exclusive of office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards and supervisors as defined by the Act."
(Emphasis supplied.)
The complaint in the instant case was issued, as
heretofore noted, on March 30, 1973, or 7 days after the
issuance of the Decision in Case 13-CA-1 1616. On May 4,
1973, the Board, in the absence of the filing of exceptions
to Administrative Law Judge Maher's Decision or a timely
request for an extension of time in which to file such
exceptions,4 adopted the findings and conclusions as
contained in his Decision, and ordered the Respondent "to
take the action set forth" in the recommended Order.
As here pertinent, the key order in the Board-adopted
Decision is the bargaining order requiring the Respondent
situation " (G C Exh 9) In this connection , it may be noted that as the trial
judge herein, I adjourned the hearing in which Mr Cooper appeared as
president of the Respondent pro se shortly after it had started and before
General Counsel could proceed with his proof of the alleged unfair labor
practices , until the next day to give Mr. Cooper the further opportunity to
engage counsel to represent Respondent I urged Cooper to retain the
counsel who had represented him and the Company in the prior case before
Administrative Law Judge Maher because of his familiarity with the
background for the instant case Cooper indicated that he expected that his
former attorney would decline to represent him because he had not paid
him his fee in the earlier case He further stated. "I am going to place an
advertisement in New York, Los Angeles , San Francisco , Washington and
other newspapers asking for legal counsel against the N L.R B and the
Teamsters-as sort of a legal aid-and if that happens I will see if there's
anybody interested in giving us a hand " The next day Cooper appeared pro
se again with the announcement that his attorney "was unprepared to
represent me" without advance payment of several hundred dollars on his
unpaid fee which Cooper claimed inability to pay.
352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to, "Upon request bargain with the above-named labor
organization [i.e., the Charging Party in the case before
Administrative Law Judge Maher as well as in the present
proceeding] in the aforementioned appropriate unit, with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours and terms and
conditions of employment, and if an agreement is reached
reduce such agreement to writing."
From the Board's adopted findings, conclusions and
orders of the Decision in the former proceeding, it is found
that the Respondent was under a continuing obligation to
bargain with the same Union here involved with respect to
the above-described unit employees at its Chicago plant at
all times from and after June 26, 1972, when the Union
requested recognition upon attaining possession of valid
union representation cards from 17 of the then 24
employees, or a majority thereof, in Respondent's Chicago
plant.
On January 26, 1973, when the number of the unit
employees on the payroll in the Chicago plant had
dwindled to seven employees due to business attrition, the
Respondent, solely for economic reasons,5 closed and gave
up its Chicago plant and moved its machinery and
operations to its North Chicago plant, some 35 miles north
of the city of Chicago. All seven of these remaining unit
employees at the Chicago plant at the time of its closing
were part of the original majority of 17 out of the 24
employees in the unit who had signed union authorization
cards and lodged them with the Union prior to the Union's
demand for recognition and bargaining on June 26, 1972,
as the majority representative of Respondent's employees.
Thus, at the time of the closing of the Chicago plant, the
Union had representation authorization cards from all or
100 percent of the seven remaining unit employees then on
the payroll of the Chicago plant.
B. Refusal to Bargain
The Respondent gave the Union no notice of its decision
to terminate its Chicago plant and to move its operations
to its North Chicago plant.
Rumor of the impending move having reached the
Union, counsel for the Union (who also appeared for the
Union in the present as well as the preceding unfair labor
case) sent the following telegraphic demands to the
Respondent on January 23, 1973•
On behalf Teamsters Local 743, demand you offer jobs
to all present employees at relocated plant and pay
transportation costs. Demand you bargain with Team-
sters Local 743 regarding all other terms and conditions
of employment of said employees.
On January 24, the next day, Respondent replied to the
Union's demands by telegram as follows:
Regarding your demand we offer jobs to all employees
at relocated plant and pay transportation costs we will
S In this connection counsel for General Counsel made the following
statement at the trial " I would like Mr Cooper , president of Respondent to
know on the record that General Counsel does not allege that Mr. Cooper
moved for any reason other than economic reasons " The undisputed record
shows that Respondent moved its manufacturing activities and offices from
comply. Regarding demand for bargaining we are not
compelled to do so at this time.
On January 26, a Friday, Respondent gave written notice
to each of the seven remaining unit employees in its
Chicago plant that it was closing that plant and also in the
same notice told them that they were "expected to report to
work Monday 1-29-73" at the Company's North Chicago
plant. The text of notice as pertinent reads as follows:
January 26, 1973
As a result of lease difficulties, a rental increase,
heating problems, and lack of expansion, EPIC is
moving its manufacturing operations to its North
Chicago Plant.
You are expected to report to work Monday 1-29-73
... [at the North Chicago plant]
s s s • •
EPIC [Electronic Products International Corporation]
will pay for your round trip train fare . For those who
drive, EPIC will pay for the equivalent of the round trip
train fare.
For the first week, until you work out your new time
schedule, we will excuse lateness . However, starting
times will be strictly enforced the following week. (The
hours remain the same.)
If you decide to reside in the area, we will discuss the
sharing of moving expenses and time off (with pay) to
look for a new home.
To maintain production , please advise us by 9 a.m.
Monday, 1-29-73 if you plan to continue your
employment with EPIC.
EPIC Management
The above notice constitutes the offer of jobs demanded
by the Union "to all present employees at relocated plant"
and for the payment of the additional transportation costs
to and from the North Chicago plant.
Only two of the remaining Chicago plant employees
accepted transfers to the North Chicago plant. With these
transferees, the North Chicago plant as of January 29 had
a total of five production and maintenance employees.
Within 30 days the two transferees dropped out of
Respondent's employment because it was "too hard to get"
to North Chicago from the city of Chicago. As of the time
of trial herein in the latter part of April 1973, the
Respondent had only three production and maintenance
employees in its North Chicago plant.
Although the Respondent fully complied with the
Union's first listed demand of its telegram that it offer jobs
to all of its Chicago plant employees at its "relocated plant
and pay transportation costs," the record shows, and the
Respondent concedes, that it did not comply with the
the city of Chicago to the city of North Chicago on January 29, 1973,
because of a substantial increase of monthly rental at its Chicago premises
and also because there was not room for physical expansion of the Chicago
facilities when and if needed in the future , among other claimed economic
reasons.
ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS INTL. CORP
Union's second listed demand that it bargain with the
Union "regarding all other terms and conditions of
employment of said employees." Counsel for General
Counsel in his oral argument at the close of the trial stated
that under the Union's demand that the Respondent
bargain about "all other terms and conditions of employ-
ment," some of the things the Union "might have been
seeking would have been severance pay, settlement of
accrued vacations, preferential hiring in case the employer
resumed operations in the City of Chicago." The undisput-
ed testimony of Respondent's President Cooper shows that
Respondent lost over $90,000 in the 10-month period
between January and October 1972 and that the Company
is still operating at a loss. I find that on January 23, 1973,
when the Union made demand upon the Respondent that
the Company bargain with the Union on "all other terms
and conditions of employment" of its Chicago plant
employees, the Respondent was in a serious financial
condition and probably in no position to make any outlays
to its Chicago employees by the way of severance pay or
accrued vacation and sick leave. But the Union was only
asking that the Respondent meet with it and discuss such
matters and the record is undisputed that the Respondent
refused to do that
Discussions and Conclusions
The sole issue herein under the pleadings is whether the
Respondent is in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act because of its failure and refusal to bargain with the
Union "over the effects upon unit employees of Respon-
dent's elimination of its manufacturing operations at its
Chicago plant and transfer of said manufacturing opera-
tions to its North Chicago plant."
In the aforementioned prior proceeding before the Board
in Case 13-CA-11616, it was established that since June
26, 1972, the Union herein has been the exclusive
representative of all of its unit production and mainte-
nance employees at its Chicago plant. Based upon that
finding the Respondent was ordered upon request of the
Union to bargain with it "with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours and terms of employment" of such employ-
ees. It is thus obvious that some 6 months later when the
Respondent decided to close its Chicago plant and to move
its manufacturing operations to its North Chicago plant
that the Company was still under a continuing obligation
to bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of
its Chicago employees on all matters affecting the terms
and conditions of their employment including the effects of
the elimination of the Chicago plant and the transfer of its
operations to North Chicago. Southern Illinois Sand Co.,
Inc., 137 NLRB 1490.
The Respondent failed to meet this continuing obligation
to bargain with the Union with respect to its Chicago plant
employees as demanded by the Union in its telegram of
January 23, 1973, by its admitted failure and refusal to
bargain with the Union over the effect of the move on such
possible matters for discussion and bargaining as severance
pay, accrued vacation pay, accrued sick leave, and
6 N L R B v Royal Plating and Polishing Co, Inc, 350 F 2d 191 (C A 3.
1965), Morrison Cafeterias Consolidated, Inc v N L R B, 431 F 2d 254
353
preferential rehiring in the event the Company resumed
operation in Chicago, but not on the matter of offering to
its Chicago plant employees job transfers to its North
Chicago plant because Respondent obviated any need for
any bargaining on that score by its immediate agreement
to offer jobs to all of its Chicago plant employees at its
North Chicago plant together with the additional daily
transportation costs involved in commuting between
Chicago and North Chicago.
Under well established authority I find and conclude
that the Respondent is in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act by its admitted refusal and failure to discuss
and bargain with the Union about such other effects of its
decision to close its Chicago plant on the affected
employees, as severance pay, accrued vacation pay,
accrued sick leave, and preferential hiring in the event the
Respondent again opened a plant in Chicago .6
Respondent's only defense to its failure and refusal to
bargain with the Union over the effects of the closing of its
Chicago plants on the employees employed therein appears
to be that it was in a "loss position." This is obviously not a
defense to the Union's demand that Respondent merely
meet with the Union's representatives and discuss such
matters. Under the Act the Respondent was under an
obligation to at least meet with the Union and discuss and
bargain over such matters and this it failed to do in
violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
upon the record as a whole, I make the following.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce,
and the Union is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act.
2. From and after June 26, 1972, the Union has been
and is the exclusive representative for collective-bargaining
purposes of an appropriate unit described as follows:
All full-time and regular part-time production, mainte-
nance and warehouse employees employed by Respon-
dent at its Chicago, Illinois, location, exclusive of office
clerical employees, professional employees, guards and
supervisors as defined by the Act.
3. From and after June 26, 1972, the Respondent has
been under a Board order to bargain with the Union as the
exclusive representative of the employees in the above-
described unit.
4. That on January 23, 1973, the Union requested that
Respondent bargain with it concerning the effect on
employees in the above-described unit over Respondent's
decision to transfer its Chicago plant manufacturing
operations to its North Chicago plant.
5. That since January 24, 1973, Respondent has refused
to comply with the Union request for bargaining as
described above and thereby engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
(C A 8. 1970): N L.R B v Drapery Manufacturing Company, Inc, and
American White Goods Company, 425 F 2d 1026 (C A 8. 1970).
354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the
Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
REMEDY
Under the complaint and at the hearing, counsel for
General Counsel seeks only an order herein "directing
Respondent to recognize and bargain in good faith with
the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of its
employees" in the described unit "upon the effects on the
employees of the elimination and transfer of manufactur-
ing operations" of its Chicago plant to its North Chicago
plant. Having found that the Respondent failed and
refused to so recognize and bargain with the Union over
the effects of its move on the affected employees in
violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, I will
recommend that the Respondent be ordered to cease and
desist therefrom and that it take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The Union at the trial and in its brief seeks a far broader
order than that requested by General Counsel as set forth
above in that in addition thereto it seeks (1) an order
requiring the Respondent to bargain with the Union
"concerning its decision to terminate operations at its
Chicago, Illinois, location" and (2) an order requiring the
Respondent to bargain with the Union as the exclusive
representative of all the production and maintenance
employees "at the North Chicago, Illinois, location, with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours and terms and
conditions of employment ...." (Emphasis supplied.)
Inasmuch as the record shows and the General Counsel
concedes that Respondent's decision to close its Chicago
plant and move its manufacturing operations to its North
Chicago plant was made solely for legitimate business or
economic reasons, I find that the Union is not entitled to
an order requiring the Company to bargain with the Union
over its decision to make such move. In a similar situation,
the court of appeals held "that an employer faced with the
economic necessity of either moving or consolidating the
operations of a failing business had no duty to bargain
with the Union respecting its decision to shut down."
N. L. R. B. v. Royal Plating & Polishing Co., supra. The court
of appeals in turn based its decisions on the holdings of the
Supreme Court in Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v.
N.L.R.B., 379 U.S. 203, 217, 223 (1964), Textile Workers
Union v. Darlington Mfg. Co., 380 U.S. 263, 267 at fn. 5
(1965). These Supreme Court holdings likewise also require
the findings made in this paragraph.
The Union is similarly not entitled to an order, as
requested, requiring the Respondent to recognize and
bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of a
unit of "full time and regular part-time production,
maintenance and warehouse employees employed by the
Respondent at its North Chicago, location" (emphasis
supplied) as distinguished from a unit of such employees at
the Chicago, Illinois, location, because the original unit as
r In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 10246 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board , the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec
alleged in the complaint in the prior unfair • labor
proceeding and in the instant case describes the unit as one
composed only of such employees as were employed at the
Chicago, Illinois, plant This likewise appears from the
charges filed by the Union under the signatures of Mr.
Rubin, counsel for the Union in both the prior unfair labor
case and the present case wherein the address of the
Respondent is shown only as the factory in the city of
Chicago and wherein the number of employees shown to
be in the Chicago plant was 25 which is several times the
number of employees the North Chicago plant had at any
time.
Thus it is clear that the Union is improperly seeking to
enlarge the original unit Chicago plant employees to
include the employees with similar jobs in the North
Chicago plant. There is no evidence that the Union ever
attempted to organize the North Chicago plant. In the
want of any evidence showing that the Union ever
represented a majority of the employees in the North
Chicago plant, I find and determine that the North
Chicago plant constitutes a separate unit from that in the
former Chicago plant.
In making the above findings, I concur in the position of
General Counsel as stated in the oral arguments before me
at the conclusion of the trial where, in response to my
question as to why General Counsel was not seeking the
broader order requested by the Union, counsel for the
General Counsel responded as follows: "The General
Counsel determined or came to the conclusions . . . that
the employees at North Chicago constituted a separate unit
from that in Chicago; that Local 743 of the Teamsters
represented at most the employees in the Chicago, Illinois
unit , not the employees in the North Chicago unit; that the
employees who transferred to the North Chicago unit did
not thereupon constitute a majority of the employees in the
North Chicago unit, to cause us to seek a new bargaining
order concerning the North Chicago unit . . . It is the
determination of the General Counsel that the Union
never represented the majority of production and mainte-
nance employees employed by this employer located at its
facility in North Chicago."
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the
entire record in this proceeding, I make the following
recommended: r
ORDER
Respondent , Electronic Products International Corpora-
tion , its officers, agents, successors , and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively with
Warehouse and Mail Order Employees Union , Local 743,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America , as the exclusive
representative of all employees in the following appropriate
unit:
102 48 of the Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings , conclusions , and order , and all objections thereto shall be
deemed waived for all purposes
ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS INTL. CORP
All full time and regular part-time production, mainte-
nance and warehouse employees employed by Respon-
dent at its Chicago, Illinois, location, exclusive of office
clerical employees, professional employees, guards and
supervisors as defined by the Act.
concerning the effects of the discontinuance of the
Chicago, Illinois, plant operation on such employees.
2. Take the `ollowing affirmative action which will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the Union
concerning the effects of the discontinuance of its Chicago
manufacturing operation on the employees in the above-
described unit.
(b) Mail a copy of the attached notice marked "Appen-
dix" 8 to each employee in the appropriate unit who was
employed by Respondent at its Chicago operation immedi-
ately prior to the discontinuance of that operation on
January 29, 1973. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by
the Regional Director for Region 13, shall be signed by
Respondent's duly authorized representative. Thereafter,
additional copies of the notice shall be posted by
Respondent and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places at its present office
and plant at North Chicago, Illinois, including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered
by any other material.
s In the event that 'he Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be changed to read
"Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals
Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "
APPENDIX
355
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a trial in which both sides had the opportunity to
present their evidence, the National Labor Relations Board
has found that we violated the law and has ordered us to
mail this notice and to post this notice at our present
location.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with
Warehouse and Mail Order Employees Union, Local
743, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, about
the effects of our decision to close down our Chicago,
Illinois, plant on the employees who were affected by
such termination and reduce to writing any agreement
reached as a result of such bargaining.
ELECTRONIC PRODUCTS
INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material. Any questions concern-
ing this notice or compliance with its provisions may be
directed to the Board's Office, Everett McKinley Dirksen
Bldg., Rm. 881, 219 S. Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois
60604, Telephone 312-353-7572.