Federal Mogul Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 6, 1967

163 N.L.R.B. 927 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

FEDERAL MOGUL CORP.
representative, shall be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 5, in writing,
within 20 days from the date of this Decision, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply therewith.31
31 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, this provision shall be modified to read. "Notify said
Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this
Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT discourage membership in United
Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, or any other
labor organization, by discharging or in any other
manner discriminating against employees in regard to
their hire or tenure of employment or any term or
condition of employment, except as authorized by the
proviso in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees about
their union activities and sentiments in a manner
constituting interference, restraint, or coercion within
the meaning of the Act, threaten them with discharge
because of their union affiliation or activity, or in any
other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce them
in the exercise of rights guaranteed to them by
Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL offer to Edward M. Robinson immediate
and full reinstatement to his former or substantially
equivalent position, without prejudice to seniority or
other rights and privileges enjoyed, and will make him
whole for any loss of pay he may have suffered by
reason of our discrimination against him.
All our employees are free to become, remain, or to
refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the
above-named Union or any other labor organization.
MARYLAND SPECIALTY
WIRE, INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
Note: We will notify the above-named employee if
presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States
of his right to full reinstatement upon application in
accordance with the Selective Service Act and the
Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended,
after discharge from the Armed Forces.
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.
927
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 6th Floor, 707
North Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202,
Telephone 752-8460, Extension 2159.
Federal Mogul Corporation , Coldwater
Distribution Center Division and Truck-
drivers Local Union No . 299, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffers,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America
(Ind.) and Coldwater Distribution Center
Employee Representative Committee, Party
in Interest . Case 7-CA-5505.
April 6, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND ZAGORIA
On November 9, 1966, Trial Examiner Eugene E.
Dixon issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 9(a)(1) and
(2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. The
Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had
not engaged in other alleged violations and
recommend dismissal of such allegations.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief;
and the General Counsel filed cross-exceptions to
the Trial Examiner's Decision, a brief in support
thereof, and a brief in support of the Trial
Examiner's Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, cross-
exceptions, and briefs, and the entire record in this
case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's
findings, conclusions, and recommendations to the
extent consistent with this Decision and Order. i
The Coldwater Distribution Center Employee
Representative Committee, hereinafter called the
I We hereby correct the following error in the Trial Examiner's
Decision: the words at the beginning of the paragraph in section
III, B, reading "The following day, September 9" should read
"The following day, February 9."
163 NLRB. No. 131
928 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Committee, has been in existence since the late
1940's. It is composed of representatives of each of
the Respondent's six departments, and a
representative of the second shift, all of whom are
elected by the employees in the departments they
represent. The committee members are elected for a
period of 1 year, but if a committeeman is removed
from the department he represents, or is transferred,
his term of office ceases, and a new committeeman
is elected. The Committee periodically meets with
management, usually once a month. Following each
meeting, the committee members "report back" to
the employees in their respective departments on
the decisions made. These "report-back" meetings
are held in each departmental area on company
time, usually just before breaktime. The Committee
has no constitution, bylaws, or regulations, receives
no income or revenue, imposes no dues or
assessments, and has no headquarters. Shortly after
September 28, 1965, the Respondent and the
Committee negotiated an "Agreement Covering
Operations and Wage Policies for Hourly
Employees," which, for the first time, formally
defined the status of the Committee.2 In January
1966, the Teamsters Union, which represents the
truckdrivers in the Respondent's plant, began a
campaign to organize the employees here involved.
The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the
Respondent unlawfully dominated, assisted, and
interfered with the administration of the Coldwater
Distribution Center Employee Representative
Committee, in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of
the Act. In so finding, we rely particularly on the
following: (1) the fact that the Committee has no
constitution or bylaws, imposes no dues or
assessments, receives no income or revenue, and
has no meeting hall; (2) the fact that the Respondent
pays employees for the time spent during the
meetings at which committee members report to
employees; (3) the fact that minutes of committee
meetings with the Respondent which are distributed
to employees are produced at the Respondent's
expense; (4) the fact that the Respondent has sought
to limit the time spent by the committee members in
reporting back to employees in their departments,
suggesting that 15 minutes would be adequate for
such purpose;3 (5) the fact that the Respondent has
attempted to control the subject matter of the
reports of committee members to employees in their
departments; (6) the fact that the Respondent has
exercised arbitrary control over the scheduling of its
meetings with the Committee; (7) the fact that the
Respondent can alter the membership of the
Committee by means of its power to transfer
committee members from one department to
another; (8) the fact that following the resignation of
all the members of the Committee in
September 1965, the Respondent urged that
employees reconstitute the Committee as it had
existed; (9) the fact that in February 1966, the
Respondent proposed that the Committee should
have increased powers, functions, and benefits, as
reflected by its suggestion to the Committee that it
get "organized," and its offers to enter into an
arbitration plan, to prepare meeting minutes and
agendas, and to reconsider, clarify, and liberalize its
position on various employee grievances; and
(10) the fact that the only body of rules governing the
operation of the Committee is contained in the
bargaining agreement between the Respondent and
the Committee.4
On the basis of all the foregoing, we find that the
Respondent, since September 17, 1965, has
provided assistance and support to the Employee
Representative Committee, and has interfered with
and dominated the administration of the Committee,
in violation of Section 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.''
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, as
modified herein, and orders that the Respondent,
Federal Mogul Corporation, Coldwater Distribution
2 The status of the "Employee Representative Committee" is
defined in the agreement as follows
In the interest of developing and maintaining good
communications between the employees and Management,
an Employee Representative Committee ha- been
established The Committee is made up of a minimum of one
employee from each department The most important
responsibility of the Employee Repress ntative is to provide
regular and efficient representation of the personnel in his
Section to the Management of the Company The Committee
meets with Management at least once each month however,
meetings may be called at more frequent times should the
occasion arise All hourly personnel are encouraged to
communicate their questions and concerns either directly to
their supervisor or to the Employee Representative After
regular or special meetings with Management, the
Representatives will report back to the employees in their
Section The names of all Employee Representatives and the
Departments they represent will be posted on the bulletin
board
a We do not agree with the Trial Examiner that the fact that the
Respondent was paying for the time during which committee
members were reporting to employees entitled it to place a
limitation on how much it was willing to so pay Both the
Respondent 's paying for the time spent and its regulating of the
amount of time to be spent constitute illegal interference with the
operation of the Committee
" Modern Plastics Corp, 155 NLRB 1126; Matthews Drivurself
Service, Inc , 133 NLRB 1513 We find it unnecessary to
determine whether any of the factors relied on constitute separate
and independent violations of Section 8(a)(2) and (1), we hold that
these factors, viewed in their totality, make it clear that the
Respondent interfered with and dominated the administration of
the Committee
Like the Trial Examiner, we do not rely, except as
background, on evidence of events occurring prior to
September 17, 1965, the 6-month cutoff date prescribed in
Section 10(b) of the Act
FEDERAL MOGUL CORP.
Center Division, Coldwater, Michigan, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recommended
Order, as so modified.
1. Delete from paragraph 1(a) of the Trial
Examiner's Recommended Order the words "or
permit."
2. Delete the third indented paragraph of the
Appendix and add the following sentence to the
second indented paragraph there:
We are not required to vary or abandon any
wage, hour, seniority, or other substantive
benefit now accorded our employees, or
prejudice the assertion by our employees of any
rights they may now have.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
EUGENE E. DIXON, Trial Examiner: This proceeding,
brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136), herein called the
Act, was heard at Coldwater, Michigan, on August 9 and
10, 1966, pursuant to due notice. The complaint, issued by
the representative of the General Counsel for the National
Labor Relations Board (herein called the General Counsel
and the Board), on May 19, 1966, and based on charges
filed and served on March 17, 1966, alleged that Federal
Mogul Corporation, Coldwater Distribution Center
Division , the Respondent herein , had engaged in unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (2) of the
Act by dominating , interfering with the administration of,
and assisting and contributing support to the Coldwater
Distribution Center Employee Representative Committee.
In its duly filed answer, Respondent denied the
commission of any unfair labor practices.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my
observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. RESPONDENT'S BUSINESS
Respondent is, and at all times material herein had
been, a corporation duly organized under and existing by
virtue of the laws of the State of Michigan. It maintains
plants in the State of Michigan, Illinois, California,
Pennsylvania, Indiana, Ohio, Missouri, and
Massachusetts. Its principal office and place of business is
located in the city of Southfield, Michigan. In its plant
Respondent engages in the manufacture, sale, and
distribution of ball, roller, and sleeve bearings, thrust
washers, oil seals, pistons, valves, and related products.
During the calendar year 1965, which is a representative
period, Respondent purchased and caused to be
transported and delivered at its Coldwater Center, in
Coldwater, Michigan, ball, roller, and sleeve bearings,
thrust washers, oil seals, pistons, valves, and other goods
and materials valued in excess of $1 million of which in
' Six departments (receiving , stock, order processing , shipping,
maintenance , and packaging) plus the afternoon or second shift
each has its elective representative
2 Section 8(a)(2) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice for
929
excess of $ 100,000 worth were transported and delivered
to its Coldwater Center directly from points outside the
State of Michigan . During the same period of time
Respondent to the course and conduct of its business
operations sold products valued in excess of $100,000
which were shipped from its Coldwater Center directly to
points outside the State of Michigan . At all times material
Respondent has been an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
Truckdrivers Local Union No. 299, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America (IND.) and Coldwater Distribution
Center Employee Representative Committee at all times
herein have been labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and Issues
One of the divisions of Respondent corporation is the
Coldwater Distribution Center (for convenience hereafter
called the Center) located in Coldwater, Michigan. Since
the late 1940's there has been in existence at the Center
what is known as the Coldwater Distribution Center
Employee Representative Committee (hereafter called the
Committee). This Committee is composed of rank-and-file
employees who are elected by their fellow employees from
various departments.' Those elected hold office for 1 year
and are the spokesmen with management for the
employees in their department. The Committee meets
with representatives of management in regularly
scheduled monthly meetings (hereinafter referred to
simply as committee meetings) and also in special
meetings which include contract negotiations.
The complaint alleges and the answer admits, as I have
found in section II above, that the Committee is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
Nevertheless the Committee, as the General Counsel
points out, "Is a relative amorphous entity." It has no
constitution, bylaws, or regulations. It has no headquarters
or meeting place nor does it maintain an office. It has no
income or revenue and imposes no dues or assessments.
The complaint alleges that since September 17, 1965,
which is the 10(b) date-being 6 months prior to the filing
of the charge, Respondent assisted, dominated, and
contributed to the support of and interfered with the
administration of the Committee in violation of Section
8(a)(2) of the Act2 in substance by:
(a) Maintaining control over the format, policies, and
operations of the Committee and the selection of the
representatives who serve on it.
(b) Maintaining control over the selection and retention
of representatives who serve on the Committee.
(c) Maintaining unilateral control over the scheduling,
frequency, and length of meetings with the Committee, as
well as the subject matter of the meetings.
(d) Rendering financial and other assistance to the
Committee.
an employer "to dominate or interfere with the formation or
administration of any labor organization or contribute financial or
other support to it" with a certain proviso not here germane
930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The complaint also alleges, presumably as part of the
8(2) conduct, the negotiations and suggestion by
Respondent on February 7, 1965, of "Improvements in the
representative powers and functions of the Committee."
At the hearing Respondent moved to strike this paragraph
of the complaint as being outside the 10(b) period.3 I
refused to grant the motion on the grounds that the
conduct alleged might have some bearing on the other
allegations in the complaint. Evidence pertaining to
conduct occurring more than 6 months before the filing of
a charge is admissible but of course cannot be the basis for
an unfair labor practice finding. Local Lodge 1427 v.
N.L.R.B. (Bryan Mfg. Co.), 362 U.S. 411; United States
Gypsum Company, 143 NLRB 1122.
B. The Evidence
There is very little conflict in the evidence. The General
Counsel put in his case almost entirely through the
testimony of Norman R. Baker, a young man in his early
2C'^, whose permanent status with Respondent began in
January 1962. While Baker's testimony is difficult at times
to follow due in part to his rambling, narrative description
of events and the failure to pinpoint their dates, his
demeanor and the very detail of his testimony left me with
no doubt as to its basic truthfulness. Much of it involves
officials or agents of Respondent who did not testify' and
thus stands undenied in the record. And even between
Baker and the two witnesses who testified for
Respondents there is very little conflicts Accordingly, the
following findings are based upon Baker's credited
testimony except where otherwise noted.
Baker was elected committee representative by the
packaging department (which was under the supervision
of Duane Houtz) on or about April 1, 1965. Baker's
election, like the election of other committee members,
was conducted by his fellow employees and was held
during working hours on the plant premises. The term of
his office, like that of other committee members, was for 1
year. At the time of his election the term of committee
members did not run simultaneously because their
elections occurred at different times. This was due to the
fact that coi.imittee members, when transferred from the
departments they represented to some other department,
lost their committee positions and slew representatives
were elected at that time. How this practice was
established does not appear in the record.
Shortly before the end of 1965 in a regular monthly
meeting with management the new personnel manager,
Kenneth McCullough,' had indicated that he would not be
-I Section 10(b) provides in part that " no complaint shall
ssue based upon any unfair labor practice occurring more than
six months prior to the filing of the charges with the Board and the
service of a copy thereof upon the person against whom such
charge is made "
4 These were Superintendent Duane Houtz , and past and
current Personnel Managers Faul Hurley and Kenneth
McCullough
s These were Plant Manager Robert G White and Manager of
Industrial Relations William C Porter
6 The only real conflict has to do with whether or not (as
testified by Baker and denied by Plant Manager White) White
made a statement to the Committee that Respondent did not want
a union or outsider to deal with and suggested that the employees
form their own union I am inclined to credit Baker here, but even
if I did not do so it would have no effect on the ultimate
conclusions and recommendations I shall make herein
able to meet with the Committee on the scheduled
Wednesdays but could or would be able to meet on
Tuesdays, instead. At this meeting, among other things,
the varying dates of the election of committeemen "was
also discussed." McCullough "suggested" that the
Committee change the time of the elections so that they
would all take place at the same time thus eliminating the
confusion resulting from changes being made in the
committee membership during the course of the year 8 As
a reason for the suggested change, McCullough indicated
that it would make for "better communications, if
everyone went in at the same time and . . management
could best deliver ( its) communications with the same
committee of having changes ... on the committee." In
the discussion with McCullough it was decided that the
elections would all be held on the first Monday in January
by the outgoing representative. No vote on McCullough's
suggestion was taken by the committee members who
"just looked at each other and said okay." Although the
matter was never taken up by the Committee with the
employees, McCullough's suggestion was put into effect.
Accordingly, Baker stood to lose 3 months of his term of
office. As it happened, however, no one wanted the
position and he was reelected by acclamation.
The monthly committee meetings with management
usually lasted from 10 a.m. till noon. In these meetings
each committee member was asked what his problems
were. In the ensuing discussion, apparently everybody
participated. After the committee meetings the committee
members reported back to their people either at 12:30 or
later in the day.9 Baker took notes at the committee
meetings and would report everything that went on
regardless of whether it pertained to his department or
not. No supervisors attended the reporting sessions which,
like the committee meetings , were all conducted on com-
pany time.'"
In April or May 1965 while Hurley was still personnel
manager, Baker had "kept after" Hurley regarding an
office poll that would have an effect on the establishment
of a floating holiday for the entire plant including the
packaging department. Hurley "was disgusted" with
Baker for "sticking [his] nose" in matters that did not
concern him and told Baker in substance that he was to
mind only what happened in his own department "and
leave the rest alone " Baker replied in substance that he
was representing his fellow employees and not
management and that he would convey to them what
information he obtained regarding the office and other
departments. Later, when McCullough became personnel
manager, this matter became the subject of "quite a
' McCullough became personnel manager on October 1, 1965
Paul Hurley held the position prior thereto
6 The practice was to elect an alternate at the same time that
the committeeman was elected Thus, if a committeeman was
transferred to another department the alternate presumably took
over his position on the Committee at that time
n According to Baker , it was Superintendent Houtz who "would
notify the people" in his department to assemble for the reporting
session, having been authorized to do so by the personnel
manager
is Even when (as in contract negotiations ) committee meetings
extended beyond the normal working hours the committee
members were paid for the time so spent So far as the record
shows, on only two or three occasions was any committee
business ever conducted outside of working time and off company
premises These involved meetings of the employees at local bank
buildings for the purpose of considering contract proposals
FEDERAL MOGUL CORP. 931
discussion" in one of the committee meetings.
McCullough told the representatives that they "were
taking too much time" in reporting to their departments.
Not long after Baker was elected initially to the
Committee, one of the women in the packaging
department had a heart attack. Because of the way the
emergency was handled due to the location of a stretcher,
employees in the department were upset and voiced their
concern to Baker. Baker took up the matter with
Superintendent Houtz who maintained that the stretcher
was located in the best place that management could put it
and that "that [was] where it was going to be." In this
same conversation, Baker also I' ought up the question of
the floating holiday and the vote on it. He told Houtz at this
time that it was his intention to report back to his people
what went on in the committee meetings . Houtz told Baker
that he had better watch what he said because if he did
not, Houtz would "nail [him] to the cross." Houtz also
said that he would give Baker "6 months as a
representative ... that it was a man's fob...."
Baker reported the substance of this conversation with
Houtz to his people. At 4 p.m. on that day Houtz called
Baker into the office where the two "had quite a
discussion again" regarding the position of committee
representative. Houtz told Baker that he had no business
telling the people in his departne,,nt what Houtz had said to
him in their previous conversation. Houtz further said that
management did not like the kind of statements Baker had
made. Baker voiced his disagreement with Houtz
maintaining that it was his duty to tell his people
"everything." Baker was in the office with Houtz on this
occasion for about 1 hour and 20 minutes.
Sometime after these conversations, Baker had another
confrontation with Houtz-this time regarding some boxes
falling off a conveyor in the plant. Houtz "wasn't very
happy" and said he did not "have time to stand around and
shoot the bull" like Baker. Considering Houtz' attitude at
this time, Baker suggested they go see Hurley.ii The three
of them were together in Hurley's office for about an hour.
At the end of an hour Houtz left and Baker remained for
another half hour. At the outset of their visit, Baker and
Houtz told Hurley what had happened regarding the
containers . Baker stressed that he was reporting as a
safety matter which he felt was his duty and very
important. Hurley and Houtz claimed that Baker was out
of his area and had no business being at the conveyor.
They both "kept getting off the subject of safety" and
avoided talking about it. Hurley said that Baker was giving
Houtz problems and "that the previous representative did
not have any problems and when she left, she came in and
told him such a nice place it was." Baker pointed out that
in negotiations the Company stressed how important
safety was and how it was everybody's job. Hurley said in
substance that such remarks were made by people who
did not have to live by them and who did not know "what
goes on."
At this point, Baker thought to himself "if this is how it
is going to be, and I am sure a troublemaker ... I am going
to resign...." He thereupon told Hurley that he was going
to resign as representative. Hurley said, "No, don't do
that, how does that make Duane feel...." Baker said he
was not resigning because of Houtz, but if the Company
was not going to "heed" what he said he did not "want any
part of it." Hurley asked Baker to defer his decision to the
following Monday,12 and Baker agreed to do so.
In the meantime , Baker talked to other members of the
Committee presumably about his meeting with Hurley and
Houtz among other things. As a result of these talks
resignations were submitted by all the committee
members.13 The next thing that happened was that the
entire Committee was called to the office where Hurley
asked them "to stay on because [they] were the only link
of communication that [the Company] had with the
people." `°'ien the Committee refused the request, Hurley
asked if they would hold the elections for a new
committee. When the Committee refused to do this,
Hurley asked if they would go back and get in contact with
the senior employees and let them hold the election. This
the Committee agreed to do. But this approach did not
result in a new committee because it developed that the
employees wanted to keep their original representatives.
Being apprised of this fact by the senior employees,
management asked them to prevail upon the Committee to
attend a joint meeting with the senior employees and
management.
This meeting took place that afternoon in the
Company's conference room. Hurley and Industrial
Relations Manager Porter were there on behalf of the
Company along with Plant Manager White. White did all
the talking. He wanted to '-now what their problems were
and where to start. No one said anything White said,
"Okay, let's start with this one." So he started questioning
the people individually, getting their feeling on things
Quite a bit of discussion ensued. Finally, White said that
he would like to have the committee members "as a
personal favor" retain their offices so that the Company
could "get this over with, and get back in good
communications...." At this point, White said he would
leave them with the senior employees so they could talk it
over. Thereupon, management left the room.
A discussion then followed between the senior
employees and the committee members with the senior
employees pleading with the Committee to continue in
office. Finally the Committee agreed to do so. When the
management representatives returned to the room they
were informed of this decision. The senior employees then
left, leaving the Committee and Porter together. At this
point the Committee was handed a new chart of
organization which was to take place on October 1
McCullough was to become personnel manager and there
were to be four superintendents instead of two. White told
the Committee that this would make for better
communications between supervision and the employees.
Regular monthly committee meetings were not held
from June to October 1965 due to the fact that contract
negotiations during that period were in progress between
the Company and the Committee. At the outset of
negotiations it appeared that due to various job transfers of
" Hurley had been transferred from the position of personnel
manager to another supervisory position by this time
12 This occurred on a Friday after the current contract (to be
discussed later) had been negotiated but before it had been
signed
" This apparently happened on or about September 22, since
that was the date according to Porter' s testimony , that he was
informed of the Committee' s resignation
295-269 0-69-60
932 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
committeemen,'` one or two departments had two
representatives appearing for them at the negotiations.
When Industrial Relations Manager Porter learned of this,
he indicated that he had no objections to both
representatives being present at the negotiations but that
"in the interest of an orderly procedure ... only one
should be spokesman."
As a committeeman, Baker attended the negotiations
meetings. At one of these meetings he raised the question,
according to his testimony, of "just ... what a
representative was suppose to be and suppose to do,
because of the different things that had happened ...."'g
According to Baker's initial testimony on the matter,
Porter said, "Let's put something in the book that will give
the representatives a little prestige." Porter then
proceeded to write something out which he presented to
the Committee with a request for any corrections or
changes. There being none offered, the committee
members "just more or less looked at each other and
agreed that way" on the clause as Porter had submitted it.
From Baker's further testimony, it would appear that, as
shown in Porter's testimony, an attempt to write the clause
in the committee meeting was not successful. As a result,
Porter suggested that he draft something for the
Committee's review at their next meeting. This is what
happened with the result that the following language was
adopted and appears in the contract as negotiated:
EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATIVE COMMITTEE
In the interest of developing and maintaining good
communications between the employees and
management, an employee representative committee
has been established. The committee has been made
up of one employee from each section. The committee
meets with management at least once each month;
however, meetings may be called at more frequent
times should the occasion arise. All hourly personnel
are encouraged to communicate their questions and
concerns either directly to their supervisors or to the
employee representative. After regular or special
meetings with management, the representatives will
report back to the employees in their section. The
names of representatives and the sections they
represent will be posted on the bulletin boards.
A great deal of evidence was adduced by both sides
regarding the details of the contract negotiations. Except
for the adoption of the clause pertaining to the Employee
Representative Committee, I see no particular relevance
of this evidence to the allegations of the complaint. So far
as I can determine from the record the contract
negotiations were carried on in a strictly arms-length, give-
and-take manner, with the Committee at one point
implying that there might be a strike unless the Company
improved its offer. There is some conflict as to when the
contract was actually signed but there is no doubt, and I
find, that it was not signed before September 28.
After the contract was negotiated the regular monthly
committee meetings with management resumed.
According to Baker's testimony, the Committee "had to
11 The General Counsel adduced evidence showing the
transfers of several committee members which resulted in the
loss of their representative positions There is no question, and I
find , that these transfers were all voluntary on the part of the
individuals involved
keep after" Personnel Manager McCullough to authorize
the supervisors to provide time for the committee
representatives to report to their fellow employees.
Finally, Baker testified that he called the latter to
McCullough's attention as follows.
So I called Mr McCullough on the telephone . . I
don't think he was in that particular time, and he
called me back and I told him over the phone . . I
said you are not living up to the book again , not giving
us any time, and he said we are living up to the book.
He said what time do you mean and I said we were
supposed to have time afterwards to report to the
people on what happened. He said just a minute. and I
could hear him over the phone . . He called for Mr
Hurley and he asked him ... he said what is the
procedure on the representatives going back to their
people? Has it always been this way and Mr. Hurley
said yes. So he said we will give you your time and so
he made it in the afternoon, dust before the 2.30 break
and at this particular time that involved 5 minutes for
the meeting.
At the next regular committee meeting, Baker complained
about not having enough time to report to his 60 or 70
people. McCullough's first response was that he did not
need more time-that the Committee was to report back
only on matters that involved their own departments "and
not necessarily everything that happened in the shop."
According to Baker's further undenied and credited
testimony, on an occasion in December 1965 management
had called for a committee meeting at 10:10, changed the
time to 1 o'clock and then changed the time again to 2:30.
When the Committee arrived at 2:30 it was the breaktime
so the Company allowed the representatives to have their
break before starting the meeting. The meeting was very
short. McCullough read a statement concerning the
imposition of written reprimands to several employees
who had refused to work overtime. The Committee had no
idea what the meeting was to have been about and "were
kind of stunned." Someone asked whether overtime was
compulsory. White and McCullough said they would not
discuss it further and started down the stairs leaving the
Committee sitting there. About half way down the stairs
McCullough turned back and said, "You fellows can go
back to work now." The Company again called the
Committee to a meeting 2 days later at which time it was
explained that the reprimands had been given not because
of a refusal to work overtime but because of an
unauthorized work stoppage.
Sometime in January 1966 a question arose as to how
the Company was going to fill the job of a woman in
Baker's department who was going on maternity leave.
Baker talked to various supervisors, including
McCullough, about the matter and asked if the Company
was "going to go by the book" regarding it. McCullough
said in effect that they did not know what they were going
to do and would not know until Superintendent Houtz got
back to the plant from an absence. Later that day Baker
got permission from his supervisor to talk to another
committeeman about the matter. The two representatives,
after discussing it, agreed that the Company should meet
with the Committee about it As Baker was returning from
15 According to Porter's testimony, one of the other
committeemen brought up matters pertaining to the Committee
which prompted Porter's inquiry if he was "suggesting that the
employees representative committee be officialized "
FEDERAL MOGUL CORP.
this conference to his department, he was called over to
McCullough who was standing with one of the committee
representatives, Magley. There McCullough told Baker
that he was "trying to stop some of the trouble" that Baker
was causing with the representatives and the employees.
Baker smiled at McCullough and McCullough said that he
"would like to knock or wipe the smile off (Baker's) face."
Baker was surprised at this remark but continued to talk
to McCullough, apparently maintaining that the Company
should "follow the book." Magley agreed that this should
be the procedure and told McCullough so. McCullough
disagreed maintaining that what happened in one
department did not necessarily happen in other
departments. The two employees referred to the book
again contending that if it was referred to in the book, it
applied to the whole shop because no specific departments
were referred to.
The next morning Baker and Magley discussed the
matter again and agreed that they "should have a meeting
on it to get the interpretation of the assignment and the
classification straightened out" particularly in view of
McCullough's disagreement with them. Later that day
Supervisor Hoffman called Baker to the office and told
him that the Company was going to wait until Houtz came
back before a decision would be made as to what to do
with the job. Baker indicated that this was all right but
that he was going to see McCullough "and ask for a meet-
ing to find out just what the interpretation is on this partic-
ular subject." Thereafter, he went to see McCullough who
apologized to Baker for what he said to him the night
before. Baker accepted the apology but indicated that he
had come to ask for a meeting with management to get
clarification on the matter in question. McCullough said he
did not think that a meeting would be proper at that
time-that he wanted to wait until Houtz got back so that
he could discuss the matter with him. He also indicated
that the matter could wait until the next regular committee
meeting. That afternoon during the break period Baker
called a meeting of his people and told them that
McCullough had refused to have a meeting regarding
"clarification of the book...."
Early in 1966, the Charging Union was engaged in
organizing activity at Respondent's plant Baker
participated by attending two or three Teamsters'
meetings at Stukey's Inn in the month of January Plant
Manager White was away on leave at this time. He
returned to work the first part of February The regular
monthly committee meeting was scheduled for Tuesday,
February 8. On Monday, February 7, Baker was notified
that the Committee was to be in the personnel office at
10 a.m. White and McCullough both attended this
meeting. White told the Committee that he had been on
vacation for a month and "wanted to get caught up on the
news, what had happened during that month that he was
absent." After his preliminary remarks, White went right
down the line questioning the committee members. This
questioning insulted in the airing of several employee
complaints or problems, including among other things.
(1) back-to-back vacations; (2) compulsory overtime; (3)
Baker's failure to secure a committee meeting when he
16 Baker had testified on direct that White had indicated that
he would like to talk to the employees but that he would "have to
have an invitation from the committee" before he could do this
On cross Baker admitted that committeeman Cleveland may have
told White that he would like to have White talk to the employees
and explain arbitration to which committeeman Eisenhut voiced
933
requested it concerning the replacement of the woman
going on maternity leave; (4) clarification of classification
interpretation; and (5) lack of time in committee meetings
and for reporting by the committee members to their
departments.
One committee member, Norman L Snow, indicated
that he felt that "there was a fear" among the employees.
White wanted to know what kind of fear. Snow said that it
was connected with an employee grievance that had been
appealed to Detroit and had been refused. White said the
employees needn't have any fear and that if they did "it
was imaginary fear." As for the grievance, White said that
it could be taken to arbitration. In this connection he told
the Committee that if the employees wanted an arbitration
procedur' i1 the contract all they had to do "was to get a
couple of people from management and a couple from the
employees and work out a procedure" and they could have
arbitration.
According to Baker's further credited testimony,
McCullough had indicated in this meeting that
Respondent "did not want a Union ... did not want a third
party" and White indicated his agreement with
McCullough. White also said, "Have you fellows ever
thought about organizing yourself. ... " When the
committee asked how this was done White said, "All you
have to do is go down and get a lawyer and make up a
charter and you are in business." White also told them
that "the contract that he had was legal on both parties, all
parties."
With respect to the amount of time the committee
representatives should have to report back to their
departments, White indicated that they "definitely . .
should have enough time" but cautioned that the use of
such time should not be abused. When the committee
tried to pin him down to a specific commitment, he pointed
out how costly it was to stop the machines and for all
people to stop working and indicated that he felt that "15
minutes seemed like a fairly good length of time to get
everything set "
The committee meeting of February 7 with White and
McCullough lasted most of the day and was continued on
the following day, apparently with further discussion on
the matters that had been raised the day before. At this
meeting one or two of the committee members indicated to
White that they would like to have him talk to the plant as
a whole. 16 Accordingly, that afternoon at 3:10 (3:30 was
quitting time) White assembled the whole slant in the
lunchroom and talked to them. He mentioned the
invitation from the Committee and gave a little
background on his leave of absence. Then he asked the
employees "what their problem was, if they had any
questions to fire them at him." Among the matters that
arose were back-to-back vacations, overtime, and
McCullough's refusal to meet with the Committee. As to
the latter matter, White said that there had been no
meeting because of Superintendent Houtz' absence "but
they would get it straightened out" and called on Baker to
confirm this About 4 p.m., White indicated that anyone
who wished to go home could do so. The meeting was still
in progress at 5 p.m. when Baker left. The employees were
his agreement and all the other representatives "sort of went
along " Baker nevertheless insisted that after this White had
indicated that he would like to have an invitation to talk to the
employees Baker explained that to that point the requests to
White were on an individual or personal basis as distinguished
from a committee or official basis
934 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
paid for the time spent at this meeting-apparently at the
overtime rate for time put in after the regular shift had
ended
The following day, September 9, another committee
meeting with management took place-this time with
McCullough and Industrial Relations Manager Porter
representing the Company. At this meeting Porter
produced a proposed draft of an arbitration clause which
(after explanation) he gave to the Committee for the
purpose of taking it back to the employees for their
consideration. At this meeting Baker again raised the
question about clarification of the classification
interpretation. At this point Porter said "if there was any
interpretation, he was the one that was going to interpret
the book, and not even Bob White or anyone else could do
that, because he was the one that wrote the language and
he would be the one that would interpret it...." i 7 He also
stated that "everything was going to be okay" and that the
Company wanted to work things out with the Committee
and that he would seek clarification regarding the
problems which had been aired.
A new practice grew out of the February committee
meetings. The Company began (with the meeting of
February 9) supplying each committeeman with a copy of
the minutes of the meetings for his corrections or
suggestions. When the representatives had examined and
corrected or approved the minutes, the Company had
them typed in final form and gave each committee
member a copy and also posted copies on the bulletin
boards. In addition to this the Company began supplying
the committeemen with copies of meeting agendas and
also posting these on the bulletin boards.
On February 15, the Committee again met with Porter
and McCullough. At this meeting the Committee reported
to Management that the employees had rejected the
arbitration clause. The Company's response was that the
clause was there and that anytime the Committee or the
employees wanted it, they could have it.
C. Contentions and Concluding Findings
In substance, Respondent contends that its dealings
with the Committee are based on contractual obligations
between it and the Committee arrived at in genuine, give-
and-take collective bargaining, and as such precludes the
findings of any unilateral conduct on the part of
Respondent amounting to domination of or interference
with the Committee, and also supply a valid contractual
basis for any assistance shown by the record to have been
rendered to the Committee by Respondent. Specifically,
Respondent would condone its payment to the employees
for attending meetings with their committee
representatives on this basis. The flaw in this argument is
ii There is no substantial variance in Porter 's version except
that his was in substance that his interpretation would be the last
word on behalf of the Company
i" For instance, it could hardly be said that Respondent
provided the impetus for the promulgation for the employee-
representative clause in the contract Nor would I find that
Respondent's efforts to control the time spent by the Committee
in reporting back to their departments violated Section 8(a)(2) of
the Act In the first place it is clear that there was no limitation or
attempt to limit by Respondent any intercourse whatsoever
between the Committee and the employees on their own time
The only limitation or attempt to limit such activity involved
working time for which the Company was paying It seems to me
that in view of the fact that the Company was paying for this time
it was entitled to place a limitation on how much it was willing to
that the evidence shows that Respondent was making such
payments before the contractual clause it relies on was
adopted. The evidence also shows that the clause in
question really was not negotiated in the sense of give-and-
take collective bargaining but merely reduced to writing or
(to use Porter's word) "officialized" the practice that
already was in existence.
There may be precedent, as Respondent contends in its
brief, for saying that payment for time spent by union
representatives while meeting with management, or the
preparation by management of the minutes of such
meetings for union representatives is merely . a
permissible form of friendly cooperation designed to foster
.. harmonious labor- management relations " and does not
amount to support or assistance within the meaning of
Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. There is no such precedent,
however, that would so excuse payment to union
representatives or employees for time spent in attending
union meetings as such. Accordingly, I have no hesitancy
in finding that on the basis of the payment to the
employees for the time spent in meetings between the
committee representatives and their fellow employees
(which would be tantamount to paying employees for time
spent in attending union meetings), Respondent rendered
financial assistance and support to the Committee within
the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act Edmont, Inc., 139
NLRB 1528.
I a,m also of the opinion that the record as a whole
supports the conclusion and finding that Respondent
interfered with the administration of the Committee and
exercised such a measure of domination over it as to
constitute a further violate n of Section 8(a)(2). While the
evidence may not be so pervasive as to sustain every
allegation of the complaint'" it does, in my opinion, show
that the Committee was not a free agent but was
subservient to the ultimate dictates of the Respondent.
That Respondent interfered with the administration of
the Committee, it seems to me, is demonstrated by the
course of action it took in connection with the resignation
of the Committee Here Respondent was intruding in an
area that was strictly an internal affair of the Committee.
And while the "impetus" for the promulgation of the
employee-representative clause in the contract (which
relates the internal structure and procedures of the
Committee) may not have come from the Respondent, as a
signatory to a contract with such a clause Respondent
became a party to matters that again were strictly internal
affairs of the Committee and thereby acquired the tight to
veto any change in them. See Modern Plastics
Corporation, 155 NLRB 1126.
The Respondent's refusal in January 1966 to meet with
the Committee- is of the same arbitrary and domineering
so pay To find the contrary would he philosophically inconsistent
with the General Counsel's c ntention (with which I have agreed)
that by paying lot the time so spent Respondent rendered
assistance to the Committee in violation of Section 8(a)(2) of the
Act The effect of the General Counsel's position here would be to
insist that Respondent act in such a way as to violate the Act or to
enlarge its violation thereof
" The request for this meeting had its origin in a specific
matter involving the department of Superintendent Houtz
However, the evidence shows that it was not this matter as such
that the Committee wanted to meet about but the overall contract
implications that the matter gave rise to In this light
Respondent 's explanation that its failure to meet was be( ause it
was waiting for Houtz to return loses much of its ameliorating
effect
FEDERAL MOGUL CORP.
pattern with the circumstances described in Baker's
testimony regarding meetings being called by Respondent
and terminated as a matter offiat. For example, there was
the occasion in December 1965 when the Company
unilaterally called a meeting for 10.10, changed the hour of
the meeting twice thereafter, and then preemptorily cut off
the meeting with the direction that the Committee could
"go back to work now " If any doubt remains that
Respondent exercised unilateral control over the
scheduling of committee meetings it should be dispelled
by the following statement appearing in a memorandum,
dated February 18, 1966. from McCullough to the
packaging department employees.
The employee representatives may request that a
special meeting be held, however, it is up to the
Personnel Department to determine the practicality
of the request.
Another element of domination by Respondent here is
reflected in its control or potential control over the
membership on the Committee. The General Counsel
contends that by virtue of the power of Respondent to
transfer employees from job to job, it does or can control
the membership on the Committee since a committee
representative loses his representative status when he is
transferred out of the department that he represents.
Respondent's position on this is that all the transfers
shown by the General Counsel to have been made were
made voluntarily and at the request of the employees
involved and, further, that such transfers by the terms of
the contract are all based on voluntary considerations. As
to this last Respondent is mistaken. The contract
provisions regarding transfers pertain to employees who
seek transfers and are, of course, couched in permissive
language. But there is nothing in the contract that would
prevent Respondent from imposing transfers on
employees if it so desired. Accordingly, whether
Respondent has in the past actually made any transfers for
the purpose of controlling the representative status of any
employee is immaterial. What is important is that it can do
it at any time it so desires. Modern Plastics Corporation,
supra
I also reject the General Counsel's contention that
Respondent controlled the subject matter of the meetings
between the committee members and the employees of
their departments. There is no doubt, as appears from the
many incidents involving Baker, that Respondent
attempted to do this. But I doubt that these attempts can
be said to amount to domination within the meaning of the
Act. Nevertheless, they reveal an attitude on the part of
Respondent regarding the status of the Committee that
tends to add force to matters I have alluded to above which
I feel show the Committee's lack of independence and
Respondent's control over it. As for Respondent's actions
toward Baker, Respondent would explain them on the
grounds that they merely involved a personality clash
between Baker and his supervisors and stemmed from
Baker's individual problems as distinguished from
Committee or plantwide problems. In this connection
Respondent comments on the General Counsel's failure to
call the other committeemen. It may be that Baker was
more aggressive in the performance of his office than some
of the other committeemen. On the other hand they all
d) In this connection the General Counsel cites the offer of an
arbitration plan, the preparation of meeting minutes and agendas,
the suggestion that the Committee get "organized," offers to
935
must have had some problems in common since they all
attempted to resign from the Committee.
The General Counsel contends that it was "awareness"
of the Teamsters organizational activities that motivated
White's February meetings with the Committee which
resulted in the "opening of the gates" whereby only a few
months after entering into a 3-year contract with the
Committee (the terms of which were to "be binding upon
both the employees and the Company") Respondent
proceeded to negotiate and grant "increased powers,
functions, and benefits20 for the purpose of entrenching
the Committee in order to squelch the activities for an
outside labor organization, and thereby illegally assisted
and dominated the Committee." While there is no
evidence to show that Respondent was aware of the
Teamsters organizational activity, in view of the record as
a whole I find the foregoing to be further evidence of illegal
assistance by Respondent.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, occurring in connection with its operations
described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and
substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes
burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has unlawfully
dominated, assisted, and interfered with the Coldwater
Distribution Center Employee Respresentative
Committee, I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom, and take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Affirmatively, I shall
recommend the usual disestablishment order and the
posting of notices, which, among other things, shall
indicate that nothing in either shall be construed as
requiring or permitting the varying or abandoning of
wages, hours, seniority, or other benefits contained in any
outstanding agreement between Respondent and the
Committee, or as preventing the employees themselves
from forming, joining, or assisting any labor organization,
including any employee-representation committee or plan,
as guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon
the entire record, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Truckdrivers Local Union No. 299, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America (IND.) and Coldwater Distribution
Center Employee Representative Committee are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
2. By dominating, assisting, and contributing to the
support of the Coldwater Distribution Center Employee
Representative Committee and by interfering with its
reconsider , clarify , and liberalize its position on various employee
grievances, and a more cooperative attitude toward Baker
936 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
administration Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and upon the entire record herein, I recommend that
Federal Mogul Corporation, Coldwater Distribution
Center Division, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Dominating, assisting, and contributing to the
support of, or interfering with the administration of, the
Coldwater Distribution Center Employee Representative
Committee, or any other labor organization of its
employees, provided, however, that nothing in this
Decision and Recommended Order shall require or permit
Respondent to vary or abandon any wage, hour, seniority,
or other substantive feature which Respondent has
established for its employees in connection with the
Committee, or to prejudice the assertion by the employees
of any rights they may have derived as a result of the
existence of the Committee and provided, further, that
nothing herein shall be construed as prohibiting the
employees themselves from forming, joining, or assisting
any labor organization, including an employee-
iepresentation committee or plan, as guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in their exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from, and
completely disestablish, the Coldwater Distribution
Center Employee Representative Committee as
representative of any of its employees for the purpose of
dealing with them and in respect to grievances, labor
disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or
other conditions of employment.
(b) Post at its Coldwater, Michigan, plant copies of the
attached notice marked "Appendix."21 Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region
7, after being duly signed by the Respondent's
representative, shall be posted by Respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps
the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.22
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for
the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the
notice In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by
a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall
be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order "
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT dominate , assist, or contribute to the
support of , or mte;fere with the administration of, the
Coldwater Distribution Center Employee
Representative Committee , or any other labor
organization.
WE hereby withdraw all recognition from and
completely disestablish the Coldwater Distribution
Center Employee Representative Committee as
representative of any of our employees for the
purpose of dealing with it concerning grievances,
labor disputes , wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment or other conditions of employment, and
will not recognize it.
WE WILL NOT vary or abandon any wage, hour,
seniority , or other substantive feature established in
behalf of our employees while bargaining with the
Coldwater Distribution Center Employee
Representative Committee, nor will we deny our
employees any right derived as a result of the
existence of that Committee.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain , or coerce our employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of
the Act.
All our employees are free to form, join, or assist any
labor organization, including an employee representation
committee or plan of their choosing, or to refrain from
doing so, except to the extent that such right may be
affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment as authorized
by Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended.
FEDERAL-MOGUL
CORPORATION, COLDWATER
DISTRIBUTION CENTER
DIVISION
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
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.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 500 Book
Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michigan
48266, Telephone 226-3244.
t' In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the
Regional Director for Region 7, in writing, within 10 days from the
date of this Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply
herewith "