European Parts Exchange

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 19, 1984

270 N.L.R.B. 1244 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
European Parts Exchange, Inc. and Amalgamated
Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-
CIO. Cases 5-CA-15584 and 5-CA-15777
19 June 1984
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
HUNTER AND DENNIS
On 20 January 1984 Administrative Law Judge
Leonard M. Wagman issued the attached decision.
The Respondent filed exceptions.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed 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 has decided to
affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and conclu-
sions' and to adopt the recommended Order as
modified.
In his recommended remedy, the judge provid-
ed, inter alia, that the Respondent reinstate the in-
surance premiums as they existed prior to the 8
July 1983 increase, pay the increase in the insur-
ance premiums which went into effect 8 July to the
insurance carrier for each of the participating unit
employees currently employed, and reimburse with
interest all unit employees employed since 8 July
for the increase in insurance premiums they paid.
The judge further provided that the Respondent's
obligation to pay the increased insurance premiums
be tolled either on the date the Respondent bar-
gains to an agreement with the Union over the pre-
mium increases or on the date a bona fide impasse
exists after bargaining on the issue. However, as
found by the judge, the Respondent also violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to
execute and abide by the collective-bargaining
agreement reached by the parties. This agreement
expressly provides in article XIX that the employ-
ees' health insurance policies will be maintained
and that there will be no increase in insurance pre-
t The judge concluded that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(aX5) and
(1) of the Act by, inter alia, unilaterally granting a 15-cent hourly wage
increase to the bargaining unit employees. The Respondent excepts to the
judge's conclusion, contending that its collective-bargaining agreement
with the Union allowed it to give wage increases over and above the
wage rates set forth in the agreement without discussion with the Union.
We note that art. XXI of the parties' collective-bargaining agreement
provides: "The wage rate and classification Schedule A ... shall
become effective April 25, 1983. This schedule does not prohibit the
Company from paying higher rates for any employee or any classifica-
tion." However, the Respondent did not raise this waiver defense at the
hearing, and the Respondent presented no evidence concerning the bar-
gaining history surrounding this provision or the parties' interpretation of
the provision. In these circumstances, we find that the issue of whether
the contractual provision constituted a clear and unmistakable waiver
concerning the Union's right to bargain over general wage increases was
not fully litigated, and we therefore find no merit to the Respondent's
exception.
270 NLRB No. 185
miums which the unit employees will be required
to pay. Consequently, the Respondent is precluded
from increasing the premiums paid by the employ-
ees for insurance coverage during the effective
period of the contract without the agreement of
the Union. See Keystone Steel & Wire, 237 NLRB
763, 767 (1978). Accordingly, we do not adopt the
judge's remedy to the extent it tolls the Respond-
ent's obligation to pay the increased insurance pre-
miums on the date the Respondent bargains to an
agreement or an impasse occurs in bargaining with
the Union with respect to the matter, but rather we
shall amend the judge's recommended remedy to
require the Respondent to abide by the terms of
the collective-bargaining agreement.2
Finally, in its exceptions the Respondent raises
the issue of an offset with regard to its backpay ob-
ligation for the 8 July increase in the employees'
insurance premiums by claiming that 5 cents of the
15-cent hourly increase which it provided 12 Sep-
tember was to compensate the employees for the
earlier premium increase. We note that in the letter
notifying the employees of the wage increase the
Respondent stated that the increase would be more
than sufficient to cover the earlier increase in the
employees' insurance costs. We shall leave to the
compliance stage of this proceeding the determina-
tion of the extent, if any, the unilateral increase in
wages may be considered as an offset against the
Respondent's obligation to reimburse the employ-
ees.
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Substitute the following for paragraphs 6 and 7,
and renumber the remaining paragraphs.
"6. By unilaterally and without the Union's con-
sent increasing the bargaining unit employees'
wages and health care insurance premiums above
that provided for in the collective-bargaining
agreement with the Union, the Respondent has vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act."
2 In providing that the Respondent abide by the terms of the agree-
ment which it reached with the Union 25 April 1983, the judge required
the Respondent to make whole, with interest, its employees for any loss
of wages or other benefits which they may have suffered as a result of
the Respondent's failure to honor the agreement in the manner set forth
in F. W Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950). Under the facts of this
case, the Woolworth formula for computing the amounts due employees is
inappropriate, and we shall amend the judge's recommended remedy and
require the Respondent to make whole its employees in the manner set
forth in Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970).
Since the Respondent's unilateral increases in wages and health insur-
ance premiums were in derogation of the agreement reached between the
Respondent and the Union, we shall amend pars. 6 and 7 of the judge's
Conclusions of Law.
1244
EUROPEAN PARTS EXCHANGE
AMENDED REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, we shall require
that the Respondent cease and desist from its unfair
labor practices and that it take certain affirmative
action designed to effectuate the purposes and poli-
cies of the Act. We further order the Respondent
to sign the collective-bargaining agreement em-
bodying the terms of the agreement between it and
the Union, that the Respondent give effect to such
agreement retroactively to 15 March 1983, and that
it make whole its employees for any loss of wages
or other employment benefits they may have suf-
fered as a result of the Respondent's failure to sign
or to honor the agreement with interest in the
manner set forth in Ogle Protection Service, 183
NLRB 682 (1970), and Florida Steel Corp., 231
NLRB 651 (1977).
Having found that the Respondent violated the
Act 8 July by unilaterally increasing the unit em-
ployees' health care insurance premiums, it is nec-
essary to restore the status quo ante. Therefore, we
shall order the Respondent to reinstate the premi-
ums as they existed prior to the 8 July increases,
pay the difference between those premiums and the
increased premiums which went into effect 8 July
to the insurance carrier for each of the participat-
ing unit employees currently employed, and reim-
burse all individuals employed at any time in the
unit since 8 July for the increase in premiums
which they paid as a result of the 8 July increase
with interest computed in the manner set forth in
Florida Steel Corp., supra. We also shall require the
Respondent to abide by terms of article XIX of its
collective-bargaining agreement reached with the
Union. We also shall require that the Respondent
post an appropriate notice to its employees.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge as modified below and orders that the Re-
spondent, European Parts Exchange, Inc., Freder-
icksburg, Virginia, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
Order as modified.
1. Substitute the following for paragraph l(b).
"(b) Unilaterally and without the Union's con-
sent modifying or changing the wages or increasing
the employees' health insurance premiums or alter-
ing any other term and condition of employment
set forth in the collective-bargaining agreement in
midterm of the collective-bargaining agreement,
provided that nothing herein shall require the Re-
spondent to rescind any wage increase which it has
previously granted."
2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(b).
"(b) Upon the execution of the agreement, give
retroactive effect to its provisions and make the
bargaining unit employees whole for any losses
they may have suffered by reason of the Respond-
ent's failure to sign the agreement plus interest, in
the manner set forth in the 'Remedy,' as modified
in the Board's Decision and Order."
3. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(c).
"(c) Reinstate the premium rates the bargaining
unit employees were required to pay for health
care insurance immediately prior to the 8 July 1983
increases, pay the premium increases effective on
and after 8 July 1983 to the health care insurance
carrier for each of the participating bargaining unit
employees currently employed, and abide by the
terms of the contract concerning the insurance pre-
miums to be paid by the employees."
4. Substitute the attached notice for that of the
administrative law judge.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found
that we violated the National Labor Relations Act
and has 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 representa-
tives of their own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or pro-
tection
To choose not to engage in any of these
protected concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT fail or refuse to sign a written col-
lective-bargaining agreement embodying the terms
of the agreement reached 25 April 1983 between us
and Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers
Union, AFL-CIO to be effective 15 March 1983.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally and without the
Union's consent grant wage increases to you, in-
crease your health care insurance premiums, or
otherwise change your wages, hours, terms, or
conditions of employment as provided for in the
collective-bargaining agreement referred to above.
WE WILL NOT bypass the Union as your exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative, and deal
directly with you regarding your health care insur-
1245
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ance or your wages, hours, or other terms and con-
ditions of employment.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of
the Act.
WE WILL, on request by the Union, forthwith
execute the contract on which agreement was
reached with the Union 25 April 1983.
WE WILL give effect to the terms and conditions
of the executed contract retroactively to 15 March
1983.
WE WILL make you whole for any losses you
may have suffered by reason of our failure to sign
the contract with interest.
WE WILL reinstate the premium rates which the
bargaining unit employees were required to pay for
health care insurance immediately prior to the in-
creases effective 8 July 1983, and WE WILL pay the
premium increases effective on and after 8 July
1983 to the health care insurance carrier for each
of the participating collective-bargaining unit em-
ployees currently employed.
WE WILL reimburse all bargaining unit employ-
ees employed since 8 July 1983 for the increases in
premiums which they paid as a result of our unilat-
eral changes in their health care premiums, with in-
terest.
EUROPEAN PARTS EXCHANGE, INC.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
LEONARD M. WAGMAN, Administrative Law Judge.
Upon a charge in Case 5-CA-15584, filed July 18, 1983,
by the Union, Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Work-
ers Union, AFL-CIO, the Regional Director for Region
5 of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board)
issued a complaint and notice of hearing against Re-
spondent, European Parts Exchange, Inc., August 17,
1983, alleging violations of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
National Labor Relations Act (the Act). Thereafter, fol-
lowing a second charge filed by the Union against Re-
spondent, in Case 5-CA-15777, September 23, 1983, the
Regional Director for Region 5 issued the order consoli-
dating cases, amended complaint, consolidated complaint
and notice of hearing in the two cases October 28, 1983,
alleging the same and additional violations of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. The consolidated complaint al-
leges that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the Act by refusing to sign a final written copy of a col-
lective-bargaining agreement, by unilaterally instituting a
wage increase, by unilaterally increasing its employees'
health care insurance premiums, and by dealing directly
with its employees at a time when the Union was their
collective-bargaining representative. Respondent, by its
timely answers, denies the commission of the alleged
unfair labor practices.
These cases were tried before me at Washington, D.C.
on December 5, 1983. Following the hearing, the Gener-
al Counsel filed a brief which I have fully considered.
On the entire record in these cases, and from my ob-
servation of the witnesses and their demeanor, I make
the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent, a California corporation, has an office and
place of business at Fredericksburg, Virginia, where it
engages in the manufacture, nonretail sale, and distribu-
tion of foreign automobile parts and related products. In
the course and conduct of its business at its Virginia lo-
cation, Respondent annually sells and ships products
valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points located out-
side the State of Virginia. I find from these admitted
facts that Respondent is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of
the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent admitted, and I find, that the Union is and
has been at all times material to these cases, a labor orga-
nization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Facts'
On September 28, 1982,2 the Board, in Case 5-RC-
11769, certified the Union as the collective-bargaining
representative of Respondent's employees in the follow-
ing appropriate unit:
All production and maintenance employees em-
ployed by Respondent at its Fredericksburg, Virgin-
ia location, including parts department employees,
but excluding all other employees, office clerical
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
Respondent admitted, and I find, that at all times materi-
al to these cases the Union has been the designated ex-
clusive collective-bargaining representative of Respond-
ent's employees in the unit described above, and has been
recognized as such by Respondent. Respondent also ad-
mitted, and I find, that the union at all times material to
these cases has been the exclusive representative of the
unit described above for purposes of collective bargain-
ing with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employ-
ment, and other terms and conditions of employment.
Respondent and the Union began contract negotiations
January 27. Thereafter, on January 28, March 8, 9, and
15, and April 25, the parties engaged in negotiations
which culminated in a complete agreement. At the con-
clusion of their last meeting, April 25, Respondent
l There were no issues of credibility in this case.
a Unless otherwise stated, all dates referred to below occurred in 1983.
1246
EUROPEAN PARTS EXCHANGE
agreed to draft the contract and send it to the Union
within 2 weeks.
During the contract negotiations, Respondent and the
Union discussed and agreed that the employees' health
insurance policies then in effect would continue, and that
there would be no increase in the premiums which the
unit employees were required to pay for coverage. Para-
graph 11 of Respondent's proposal of March 15, which
the Union accepted April 25, contained that agreement.
Six weeks after Respondent and the Union had
reached agreement, the Union had not as yet received a
written contract from Respondent. On June 6, the Union
sent a letter to Respondent seeking the promised written
contract. The Union received no response from Re-
spondent. The Union made further unsuccessful attempts
to obtain a written contract from Respondent.
On July 6, Respondent sent a letter and a draft of the
agreed-to contract to the Union. However, the Union
did not receive them.
In August, the Union sent a draft of the agreed-to con-
tract to Respondent and requested that Respondent sign
the agreement. Respondent received the contract in
August. However, as of December 5, the date of the
hearing in these cases, Respondent had not executed the
agreed-to contract, which by its terms was to be effec-
tive commencing March 15.
By a bulletin to its employees, dated June 27, Re-
spondent, without notice or discussion with the Union,
announced the following regarding its employee group
insurance program:
Our group insurance carrier, United Benefit, has
announced a premium rate increase of over 50% ef-
fective with the new policy year beginning June 1,
1983.
Due to the significant premium increase, coupled
with the fact that many of you in the past have ex-
pressed dissatisfaction with the level of service pro-
vided by United Benefit, we have changed our
policy to the Travelers Insurance Company begin-
ning July 1, 1983.
This change will not have an effect on your ben-
efits, and any amounts accumulated toward satisfy-
ing your deductible under the United Benefit plan
will be carried forward to the Travelers plan.
While the Travelers premiums are slightly lower
than the revised rates from United Benefit, they still
represent a 50% increase which cannot be totally
absorbed by the company. Effective July 1st the
weekly payroll deductions will be increased to
cover approximately one half of the increase in pre-
miums.
So that you will be aware of the monthly premi-
ums being paid by the company a comparison of the
rate before and after the policy change is shown
below:
NewOld Rate e
Employee........................................................
Employee with one dependent.....................
S45.22 S 67.84
106.73 160.11
Beginning July 4th the weekly payroll deductions
will be as follows:
$ 5.25-Employee
9.75-Employee and one dependent
16.00-Employee and two or more dependents
In the event you elect to change your coverage
as to the number of dependents, or decide to waive
coverage altogether, please see Personnel so that
your payroll deductions may be adjusted according-
ly.
During July, Respondent distributed two forms to its
employees. One asked each employee to select the group
health insurance coverage and the weekly payroll deduc-
tion he or she wanted, or to indicate that he or she did
not want health insurance coverage. The second form
was an application to the insurance carrier for insurance
coverage.
Effective July 8, Respondent increased the weekly in-
surance premium payroll deduction for employees who
participated in the group insurance program. At no time
prior to this increase did Respondent notify the Union
of, or discuss with the Union, the contemplated increase
in its employees' weekly insurance premium payroll de-
ductions.
On September 12, Respondent, without notice to, or
discussion with, the Union, granted a 15-cent hourly
wage increase to the bargaining unit employees. Eleven
days later, Respondent notified its employees by letter as
follows:
As you are aware, the company has for the past
several years, when conditions were good, given
wage increases for cost of living or otherwise in
June of each year. However, last June our level of
business did not permit us to grant an increase at
that time.
Now however, we are able to pass on a cost of
living increase of ten cents per hour and an addi-
tional five cents per hour (total fifteen cents). This
will more than cover the changes in our Group In-
surance Program, which were necessitated by in-
creased cost to the company.
This increase will be effective on September 12,
1983, which will be in your paycheck of September
23, 1983.
We wish to take this opportunity to thank each
and every one of you for your concern for the wel-
fare of this company and your continued support
for more productivity which made this increase
possible.
In 1982 and in several previous years prior to the
Union's certification, Respondent's policy had been to
grant two wage increases annually, one in January and
the second in July. In 1983, poor business conditions pre-
vented Respondent from granting a wage increase in
July.
B. Analysis and Conclusions
"Section 8(d) of the [Act], as amended, imposes upon
either party to a collective-bargaining agreement the
1247
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
duty to execute a written contract incorporating such
agreement if so requested by the other party." Kennebec
Beverage Co., 248 NLRB 1298 (1980). Here, it was undis-
puted that the parties achieved a collective-bargaining
agreement April 25. The record also makes clear that
Respondent failed to carry out its commitment to reduce
the agreement to writing and submit it to the Union
"within two weeks." Nor has Respondent complied with
the Union's subsequent request that it sign the draft
agreement which the Union prepared and sent to Re-
spondent August 18. Respondent has had the proposed
agreement since August and has not contended that the
tendered document is unacceptable or otherwise insuffi-
cient. Nevertheless, Respondent has failed to honor its
obligation to execute the collective-bargaining agree-
ment. Having failed to do so, I find that Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Tasman Sea,
Inc., 247 NLRB 18, 22 (1980).
I also find on the facts set forth above, that Respond-
ent deserted its obligation to bargain collectively with
the Union when it unilaterally increased the insurance
premiums paid by the bargaining unit employees. Re-
spondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act. NLRB v. Williamsburg Steel Products Co., 369 U.S.
736, 747 (1962); Tuxedos, Inc., 250 NLRB 476 (1980).
I find that by its bulletin to its employees dated June
27, and by the forms it distributed to the bargaining unit
employees in July, dealing with the change in the insur-
ance carrier, the insurance premium increases, and the
employees' choice of paying the increased premiums or
dropping their health insurance coverage, Respondent
dealt directly with its employees. By this conduct, Re-
spondent bypassed its employees' collective-bargaining
agent concerning a condition of their employment, and
thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. Alle
Arecibo Corp., 264 NLRB 1267 (1982); Kent Upholstery
Co., 266 NLRB No. 58, slip op. 10-12 (Mar. 4, 1983)
(unpublished decision).
Finally, I find from the facts above that Respondent
violated its duty to bargain with the Union when it uni-
laterally granted a 15-cent hourly wage increase to the
bargaining unit employees. Accordingly, I further find
that Respondent thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act. Fry Foods, 241 NLRB 76, 92 (1979).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent, European Parts Exchange, Inc., is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union,
AFL-CIO is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The following employees of Respondent constitute a
unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees em-
ployed by Respondent at its Fredericksburg, Virgin-
ia location, including parts department employees,
but excluding all other employees, office clerical
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
4. At all times material herein, the Union has been the
recognized exclusive representative of Respondent's em-
ployees in the above-described appropriate unit.
5. By failing and refusing to execute a written contract
embodying the terms and conditions reached with the
Union, and by failing to abide by the terms of said con-
tract, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.
6. By unilaterally increasing the bargaining unit em-
ployees' health care insurance premiums without notify-
ing and bargaining with the Union, Respondent has vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
7. By unilaterally increasing the bargaining unit em-
ployees' wages without first notifying and bargaining
with the Union, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) of the Act.
8. By dealing directly with the bargaining unit em-
ployees and bypassing the Union when it polled them as
to whether they desired health insurance coverage and if
so, what type of coverage they desired, Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
9. The foregoing unfair labor practices affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act. -
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act, I shall recommend that Re-
spondent be required to cease and desist from its unfair
labor practices and that it take certain affirmative action
designed to effectuate the purposes and policies of the
Act. I shall further recommend that Respondent forth-
with sign the collective-bargaining agreement embodying
the terms of the agreement between Respondent and the
Union as found herein; that it give effect to such agree-
ment retroactively to March 15, 1983; and that it make
whole its employees for any loss of wages or other em-
ployment benefits they may have suffered as a result of
Respondent's failure to sign or to honor the agreement.
The loss of earnings together with interest under the
Order shall be computed in the manner set forth in F W.
Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), and Florida Steel
Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).3
Having found that Respondent violated the Act July
8, by unilaterally increasing the unit employees' health
care insurance premiums, it is necessary to restore the
status quo ante. Therefore, I shall recommend that Re-
spondent reinstitute the premiums as they existed imme-
diately prior to the July 8 increases, and pay the differ-
ence between those premiums, and the increased premi-
ums which went into effect July 8 to the insurance carri-
er for each of the participating unit employees currently
employed and reimburse all unit employees employed
since July 8 for the increase in premium they paid as a
result of the July 8 increase with interest computed in
the manner set forth in Florida Steel Corp., supra. This
obligation shall be tolled either on the date Respondent
bargains to an agreement with the Union over the premi-
um increases involved herein or on the date a bona fide
3 See generally Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
1248
EUROPEAN PARTS EXCHANGE
impasse exists after good-faith bargaining over the
matter. I shall also recommend that Respondent be re-
quired to post an appropriate notice to its employees.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and
on the entire record, I make the following recommend-
ed4
ORDER
The Respondent, European Parts Exchange, Inc.,
Fredericksburg, Virginia, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to sign or apply a written col-
lective-bargaining agreement reached on April 25, 1983,
between Respondent and the Union, Amalgamated
Clothing and Textile Workers Union, AFL-CIO, to be
effective March 15, 1983.
(b) Unilaterally granting wage increases, increasing
employees' health care and insurance premiums, or oth-
erwise unilaterally changing wages, hours, or terms and
conditions of employment of any bargaining unit em-
ployee, without first notifying the Union and bargaining
collectively with it in good faith concerning such pro-
posed changes, provided that nothing herein shall require
Respondent to rescind any wage increase which it has
previously granted.
(c) Bypassing the Union, as the exclusive representa-
tive of the employees in the collective-bargaining unit
and dealing directly with the bargaining unit employees
regarding their health care insurance or their wages,
hours, or other terms and conditions of employment.
(d) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action designed to ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request by the Union, forthwith sign the agree-
ment described in paragraph l(a) of this recommended
Order.
(b) On the execution of the agreement, give retroac-
tive effect to its provisions and make the bargaining unit
4 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.
employees whole for any losses they may have suffered
by reason of Respondent's failure to sign the agreement
plus interest, in the manner set forth above in the
"Remedy."
(c) Reinstate the premium rates the bargaining unit
employees were required to pay for health care insur-
ance immediately prior to the July 8, 1983 increases, and
pay the premium increases effective on and after July 8,
1983, to the health care insurance carrier for each of the
participating bargaining unit employees currently em-
ployed, provided that the obligation to make such pay-
ments will cease either on the date when Respondent
reaches agreement with the Union over the premium in-
creases, or on the date when a bona fide impasse exists
after good-faith bargaining over the matter.
(d) Reimburse all bargaining unit employees employed
since July 8, 1983, for the increases in premiums which
they paid as a result of Respondent's unilateral changes
in the bargaining unit employees' health care insurance
premiums with interest, in the manner set forth above in
the "Remedy."
(e) 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.
(f) Post at its place of business at Fredericksburg, Vir-
ginia, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."s
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 5, after being signed by the Re-
spondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material.
(g) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
s 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."
1249