Gaylord Chemical Co. LLC

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 25, 2012

358 N.L.R.B. 525 (N.L.R.B. 2012)

525
GAYLORD CHEMICAL CO.

358 NLRB No. 63
Gaylord Chemical Co., LLC and United Steelwork-
ers International Union and its Local 887. Case
10–CA–038782
June 25, 2012
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN PEARCE AND MEMBERS HAYES
AND GRIFFIN
On August 18, 2011, Administrative Law Judge Ira
Sandron issued the attached decision. The Respondent
filed exceptions and a supporting brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record in light of the ex-
ceptions and briefs, and has decided to affirm the judge’s
rulings, findings,1 and conclusions, and to adopt his rec-
ommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Gaylord Chemical Company,

1 Although the Respondent states that the parties do not dispute sali-
ent facts, some of its exceptions implicitly challenge the judge’s credi-
bility findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an
administrative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear pre-
ponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are in-
correct. Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188
F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and
find no basis for reversing the findings.
Chairman Pearce and Member Hayes find it unnecessary to pass on
the judge’s finding that the interrogation of former union steward and
executive board member Ronald Talley was unlawful, because the
finding is cumulative and does not affect the remedy. Member Griffin
would adopt the judge’s finding. Vice President of Manufacturing
Marc Smith, one of the Respondent’s highest ranking managers, sum-
moned Talley to his office on Talley’s first day of work at the new
Tuscaloosa facility and asked him why he thought the employees need-
ed a union. Thereafter, Smith told Talley that unions were divisive,
negatively affected company growth, and constituted a waste of money;
Smith added, “[W]e don’t need a union.” Smith’s interrogation, which
occurred on the very day that the Respondent informed the Union that it
would not recognize and bargain with it, essentially conveyed the mes-
sage that the Union’s status and Talley’s representational duties were in
jeopardy. See Scheid Electric, 355 NLRB 160 (2010) (questioning of
union steward by employer’s highest-ranking officer was coercive
because the questioning implied that employer was prepared to with-
draw recognition from the union and effectively suggested to employee
that the union’s status and his representational duties were imperiled).
On the facts presented here, Member Griffin agrees with the judge that
the interrogation had a reasonable tendency to be coercive and therefore
violated Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act.
The judge states that the Respondent and the Union “signed [a
memorandum of agreement] regarding post-relocation employment of
Bogalusa employees.” In fact, the memorandum of agreement covered
employees only through the period of time necessary to substantially
relocate or dismantle the Bogalusa plant.
LLC, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
Order.

Kerstin I. Meyers, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Jeffrey A. Schwartz, Esq. (Jackson Lewis LLP), of Atlanta,
Georgia, for the Respondent.
Glen M. Connor, Esq. (Quinn, Connor, Weaver, Davies & Rou-
co, LLP), of Birmingham, Alabama, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
IRA SANDRON, Administrative Law Judge. This matter arises
out of a complaint and notice of hearing issued on April 29,
2011, against Gaylord Chemical Company, LLC (the Respond-
ent or the Company), stemming from unfair labor practice
(ULP) charges filed by the United Steelworkers International
Union (USW International) and its Local 887 (the Union).
Pursuant to notice, I held a trial in Birmingham, Alabama,
on June 27 and 28, 2011, at which I afforded the parties full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to introduce evidence.
Issues
(1) Since on about October 25, 2010,1 has the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations
Act (the Act) by unlawfully failing and refusing to recognize
and bargain with the Union as the collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of unit employees following the Respondent’s
relocation of operations from Bogalusa, Louisiana, to Tusca-
loosa, Alabama.
(2) Since the same date, has the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing to provide the Union
with information that it had requested that was relevant and
necessary for the Union’s performance of its duties as the col-
lective-bargaining representative of those employees.
(3) Did the Respondent violate Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by
creating the new unit job position of “Lead Shipper” in about
January 2011, without providing the union prior notice and an
opportunity to bargain.
(4) Did Marc Smith, vice president/manufacturing, in about
late September and on October 25, violate Section 8(a)(1) by
interrogating employees about their union sympathies.
Witnesses and Credibility
The General Counsel called Union Representatives Daniel
Flippo, district director for District 9, and Michael Tourne, a
USW International staff representative; and employees Doug
Mitchell, Wendell Sullivan, and Ronald Talley, all transferees
from Bogalusa to Tuscaloosa. All of the General Counsel’s
witnesses appeared straightforward in demeanor and in their
recitation of events, and none displayed any hints of attempts to
embellish or otherwise skew their testimony.
The Respondent called no witnesses, despite the fact that
Smith was present throughout as the Respondent’s designated
representative pursuant to my sequestration order. The Re-

1 All subsequent dates occurred in 2010, unless otherwise indicated.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

526
spondent’s failure to call Smith or other managers/supervisors
involved in the events underlying the allegations must be
deemed to raise the suspicion that their testimony would not
have controverted that of the General Counsel’s witnesses and
been unfavorable to the Respondent’s case. I therefore draw an
adverse inference against the Respondent on these matters. See
Palagonia Bakery Co., 339 NLRB 515, 538 (2003); Dalikichi
Sushi, 335 NLRB 622, 622 (2001); International Automated
Machines, 285 NLRB 1122, 1123 (1987), enfd. mem. 861 F.3d
730 (6th Cir. 1988).
Accordingly, I credit the testimony of the General Counsel’s
witnesses. I note that most of the salient facts in this case are
undisputed, in large measure due to the parties’ wide range of
documentary and factual stipulations.2
Facts
Based on the entire record, including testimony and my ob-
servations of witness demeanor, documents, and stipulations, as
well as the helpful posttrial briefs that all three parties filed, I
find the following.
The Respondent is a Louisiana limited liability corporation
with an office and place of business in Tuscaloosa, Alabama,
where it is engaged in the business of manufacturing dimethyl
sulfoxide (DMSO). The Respondent has admitted jurisdiction,
and I so find.
For decades prior to 2010, the Respondent’s chemical plant
(the plant or the facility) was located in Bogalusa, Louisiana,
and the Union—the USW International and its designated local
union—represented a unit of all production and maintenance
hourly paid workers employed there. The local union’s number
designation and the ownership of the facility have changed
through the years.
In terms of the Union’s structure, there are two types of lo-
cals. The first is an amalgamated local, a smaller unit that is
part of a “mother local,” which handles its finances; the second
is a full-fledged independent local. Locals report to districts,
which are divided for administrative purposes into sub-districts.
The districts report directly to the USW International. There
are 13 districts nationwide, as established by the USW Interna-
tional’s executive board and constitution, as amended on July 1,
2008: Alabama comes under the jurisdiction of District 9,
whereas Louisiana is under District 13.3
On September 1, 2007, the Respondent purchased the facility
from its predecessor, Temple Inland. Their purchase agreement
provided that the lease on the Bogalusa plant would expire, and
the parties anticipated that the operations would be relocated.
On July 31, 2007, the Respondent and the Union entered into
a memorandum of agreement (MOA), providing that the Re-
spondent would honor the provisions of the existing labor
agreement, with certain modifications and changes.4
In about February 2009, the Respondent informed employees
that it was closing the Bogalusa facility and was opening a new
facility in Tuscaloosa. In the same time period, the Respondent
extended job offers to all employees in the Bogalusa bargaining
unit who were willing to relocate to Tuscaloosa.

2 Jt. Exhs. 1(a)–13.
3 See GC Exh. 13 at 5–6.
4 Jt. Exh. 1(b).
On March 29, 2009, the Respondent and the Union signed a
new collective-bargaining agreement, effective through August
31, 2011, or the cessation of operations at the Bogalusa facility
(with certain qualifications not here relevant).5 Representatives
of the USW International, District 13, and Local 13-189 (an
amalgamated local) signed on behalf of the Union. The parties,
on about March 27, 2009, also entered into an MOA providing,
inter alia, that employees would enjoy continued employment
during and after relocation.6 As in negotiations for the 2007
MOA, Tourne participated in negotiations for these agreements
and signed as a representative of the International.
On September 6, the Respondent began the process of clos-
ing its Bogalusa facility and relocating its equipment, supplies,
materials, and products to Tuscaloosa. The entire relocation
process took approximately 108 days. The Tuscaloosa facility
began producing DMSO, the sole product manufactured at the
plant, on December 16. The Bogalusa plant closed in about
January 2011.
As early as the week ending September 11, unit employees
from Bogalusa began relocating to Tuscaloosa. By the week
ending October 30, 12 of approximately 18 unit employees
from Bogalusa had permanently transferred to the Tuscaloosa
facility. They perform job functions substantially similar to
those they performed in Bogalusa. Two other employees have
been hired to work at the plant. The Respondent concedes that
the Tuscaloosa plant operates in basically unchanged form and
that it continues to employ as a majority of its employees indi-
viduals who were previously employed at its Bogalusa facility.7
At the Union’s request, I conducted an in camera inspection
of eight authorization cards from current employees that are in
the Union’s possession. One was undated, one was dated Janu-
ary 27, 2011; two were dated February 2, 2011; two were dated
February 3, 2011; one was dated February 8, 2011; and one was
dated February 10, 2011.
Union Requests to Bargain and for Information
Flippo, the Union’s District 9 director, sent an August 31 let-
ter to Smith and Paul Dennis, the Respondent’s president and
chief executive officer. He stated that the Union understood a
majority of employees at Tuscaloosa were from the Bogalusa
unit, and he requested bargaining, as well as a list of names, job
classifications, seniority dates, rates of pay, and benefits for
unit employees.8 He sent them a similar letter, again requesting
bargaining and the same information, on September 23.9
By September 30 letter, Dennis asked Flippo what District
9’s legal basis was for asserting that it was the employees’ bar-
gaining representative.10
By letter of October 19 to Dennis and Smith, Flippo stated
that the USW International was the certificated bargaining rep-
resentative.11 He again requested bargaining and once more

5 Jt. Exh. 2.
6 Jt. Exh. 3.
7 See Jt. Exh. 11, showing that of the 14 current unit employees, 12
came from Bogalusa.
8 Jt. Exh. 4.
9 Jt. Exh. 5.
10 Jt. Exh. 6.
11 Jt. Exh. 7.
GAYLORD CHEMICAL CO.

527
requested the information for which he had asked in the letters
referenced above, as well as information concerning, inter alia,
(1) criteria used to transfer employees; (2) compensations
package to employees who had relocated; (3) wage rates and
classifications at both facilities; (4) wages paid to each employ-
ee; (5) overtime hours; (6) job descriptions/and or job duties,
departments, and classifications; (7) compliance with OSHA
standards and reporting requirements; (8) cost of medical and
other insurance; (9) all plant rules and regulations; (10) various
leave amounts and costs; (11) bonuses; (12) workers’ compen-
sations programs; (13) amount and cost of safety equipment;
(14) any other fringe benefits; and (15) most recent EEO-1
report filed.
Flippo testified that he wanted the information so that his
staff could prepare to negotiate a collective-bargaining agree-
ment for the Tuscaloosa facility, which would become an
amalgamated local.
Dennis responded by letter of October 25, in which he stated
that neither the USW International nor District 9 was the certi-
fied bargaining representative for employees at the plant, and
he therefore denied the Union’s demand for bargaining and
requests for information.12
Unilateral Change
The Respondent admittedly created a new unit job position
called “lead shipper” in about January 2011 without providing
the Union with prior notice and an opportunity to bargain, and I
so find.
Interrogation
Within a week or two after Mitchell transferred to Tusca-
loosa in mid-September, Smith asked him in to his temporary
office in a trailer, to talk about leadership. Early on, Smith
asked, “why I thought we needed a union”?13 Mitchell an-
swered rhetorically, why not? Smith then explained his leader-
ship philosophy, drawing pictures on a sketch pad as he went
along. He said that there was more flexibility and less expense
without a union. Mitchell asked what those expenses were.
Smith replied, union dues and legal fees for the Company for
attorneys negotiating and reviewing contracts.
On the morning of October 25, Smith asked Talley to come
to his office at the Tuscaloosa facility. There, Smith asked him
“why we wanted a union or needed a union”?14 Talley replied
with his reasons for wanting union representation. Smith then
stated that a union was divisive, was an added expense to the
company and to employees, and restrained company growth.
He discussed his concept of team leadership and said that man-
agement would be holding a “townhall meeting” to dispel ru-
mors.15

12 Jt. Exh. 8.
13 Tr. 177.
14 Tr. 39, 41.
15 Dennis and Smith conducted such a meeting on October 27. The
General Counsel does not allege that anything they said violated the
Act.
Analysis and Conclusions
Failure to Recognize and Bargain
The Board has long held that, following an employer’s relo-
cation, a union is entitled to continued recognition and to have
an existing collective-bargaining agreement remain in effect,
provided operations and equipment remain substantially the
same at the new location, and a substantial percentage of em-
ployees at the old facility transfer to the new location. Rock
Bottom Stores, 312 NLRB 400, 402 (1993), enfd. 51 F.3d 366
(2d Cir. 1995). Westwood Import Co., 251 NLRB 1213, 1214
(1980), enfd. 681 F.2d 664 (9th Cir. 1982). The “substantial
percentage” requirement is met if the transferees from the old
facility constitute at least approximately 40 percent of the new
facility’s employee complement. Rock Bottom Stores, supra at
402; Harte & Co., 278 NLRB 947, 948 (1986); Westwood Im-
port Co., supra at 1216 fn. 8.
Here, the Respondent has admitted, both in its answer
and/or by stipulations, that it has continued to operate the Tus-
caloosa facility in basically unchanged form and that a majority
of its Tuscaloosa employees were previously employed at the
Bogalusa facility. The Respondent also admittedly refused to
bargain after the Union’s August 31, September 23, and Octo-
ber 19 requests for such.
The Respondent provided no evidence that the Union has ev-
er lost the support of a majority of unit employees, whether in
Bogalusa or Tuscaloosa, and does not now argue this as a basis
for nonrecognition of the Union. Accordingly, I need not dis-
cuss whether the Union’s presumption of majority support was
rebuttable because the collective-bargaining agreement, by its
express terms, terminated upon the relocation. Suffice to say,
the Respondent failed to establish that at the time it withdrew
recognition, the union had actually lost majority status. See
Levitz Furniture Co. of the Pacific, 333 NLRB 717, 717 (2001).
Nor does the Respondent now argue that the Union waived any
rights to represent relocated employees.
Rather, the Respondent contends that it has no current bar-
gaining obligation because of the following factors combined:
(1) the conjunctive definition of the certified bargaining repre-
sentative as both the International and its designated Local 189;
(2) the significant distance of the move; ( 3) the absence of
animus behind the decision to locate; (4) the Union’s internal
requirement that employees continue to express a desire for
unionization; (5) the geographic definition in the collective-
bargaining agreement (Bogalusa); and (6) the solicitation by the
Union of postrelocation authorization cards.16
The Respondent’s counsel concedes that he can cite no
Board decisions or court cases directly supporting the Re-
spondent’s position (R. Br. at 6).
The Respondent’s collective-bargaining relationship has
been with the USW International, not separately with its subor-
dinate components, whose bargaining authority and representa-
tional authority derived entirely from their affiliation with the
USW International. I therefore deem wholly lacking in merit

16 R. Br. at 5–6.

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

528
the Respondent’s assertion that the conjunctive definition of the
certified bargaining representative in the labor agreement,
and/or the postrelocation change in union district or local juris-
diction, stripped the Union of its representational status.
Nor did the fact that the move was some distance away de-
prive the Union of that status. To hold otherwise would be to
allow an employer to evade its collective-bargaining obliga-
tions simply by moving further away—leading to the untenable
result of making relocation more onerous on unionized em-
ployee.
Whether or not the relocation was motivated by antiunion or
other unlawful reasons is not determinative of the Union’s right
to continued representational status. See J. R. Simplot Co., 311
NLRB 572, 579; Westwood Import Co., supra at 1213.
The Respondent’s brief fails to specify any evidence sup-
porting its claim that the Union has an internal requirement that
employees continue to express a desire for unionization. I will
not shoulder that responsibility or address this point further.
Although the geographic definition in the collective-
bargaining agreement was Bogalusa, there was no language “at
no other locations,” and other provisions in the agreement une-
quivocally demonstrate that the parties envisioned a disman-
tlement of the Bogalusa plant and transfer of its operations
elsewhere. Moreover, the parties signed an MOA regarding
post-relocation employment of Bogalusa employees. As noted,
the Respondent does not allege that Union ever waived any
rights to represent them after the relocation.
Finally, the Union’s decision to collect authorization cards
in no way serves as an admission against interest or supports
the Respondent’s suggestion that the Union was required to file
a representation petition to establish postrelocation majority
status. Indeed, the card check revealed that the Union contin-
ued to enjoy such status after the move to Tuscaloosa.
Accordingly, I conclude that the Respondent was required to
continue to recognize the Union and bargain with it as the col-
lective-bargaining representative of the plant’s Tuscaloosa unit
employees and that its failure to do so since on about October
25 violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
Failure to Provide Information
An employer is obliged to supply information requested by a
collective-bargaining representative that is relevant and neces-
sary for the latter’s performance of its responsibilities to the
employees it represents. NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385
U.S. 432 (1967); NLRB v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149 (1956).
When the requested information concerns terms and conditions
of employment of bargaining unit, that information is presump-
tively relevant, and the respondent must provide it. Chrysler,
LLC, 355 NLRB 307, 314 (2010); Contract Flooring Systems,
344 NLRB 925, 928 (2005).
Here the information that the Union sought by its letters of
August 31, September 23, and October 19 related directly to
unit employees’ terms and conditions of employment, including
wages and other compensation, and health and safety matters.
Accordingly, the information that that the Union requested was
presumptively relevant, the Respondent has never claimed oth-
erwise, and I conclude that the Respondent violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) since on about October 25 by failing to furnish
it.
Unilateral Change
An employer violates Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
when it unilaterally makes substantial changes on subjects of
mandatory bargaining; to wit, employees’ wages, hours, or
other terms and condition of employment, without first afford-
ing notice and a meaningful opportunity to bargain to the union
representing employees. NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736 (1962);
United Cerebral Palsy of New York City, 347 NLRB 603, 608
(2006). An employer’s creation of new positions in the bar-
gaining unit is such a mandatory subject of bargaining. Spurli-
no Materials, LLC, 353 NLRB 1198, 1198 (2009), reaffirmed
355 NLRB 409 (2010), enfd. 645 F.3d 870 (7th Cir. 2011).
I therefore conclude that by admittedly creating the new unit
job position of “lead shipper” in about January 2011, without
providing the Union prior notice and an opportunity to bargain,
the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
Alleged 8(a)(1) Violations
A statement from an employer is an unlawful threat under
Section 8(a)(1) if it interferes with, restrains, or coerces em-
ployees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. 29 U.S.C. §
158(a). Not all employer interrogations are per se illegal.
Rather, the test is whether, under all the circumstances, the
interrogation tends to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employ-
ees. Matthews Readymix, Inc., 324 NLRB 1005, 1007 (1997);
Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176, 1176–1178 (1984).
Here, Smith, a high-level manager, called Mitchell and Tal-
ley individually into his office and asked them why they want-
ed a union, in conversations in which he attempted to persuade
them that they and the Company would be better off without
their having union representation. In these circumstances, I
conclude that Smith’s questions had the reasonably foreseeable
effect of discouraging employees from supporting the Union
and thereby constituted unlawful interrogation.
Ergo, I conclude that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1)
by unlawfully interrogating employees in about late September
and on October 25 about their union sympathies.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By the following conduct, the Respondent has engaged in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and violated Section 8(a)(5)
and (1) of the Act:
(a) Failed and refused to recognize and bargain with the Un-
ion as the collective-bargaining representative of unit employ-
ees in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
(b) Failed and refused to provide the Union with infor-
mation that the Union requested concerning the terms and con-
ditions of employment of unit employees.
(c) Created the new unit job position of lead shipper without
first providing the Union notice and an opportunity to bargain.
GAYLORD CHEMICAL CO.

529
4. By interrogating employees about their union sympathies,
the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act and violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
Since the Respondent unilaterally created a new unit position
of lead shipper, the Respondent shall be ordered to make any
unit employees whole for any loss of earnings and other bene-
fits they may have suffered. The make-whole remedy shall be
computed in accordance with Ogle Protection Service., 183
NLRB 682 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971), with
interest at the rate prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB
1173 (1987), compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky
River Medical Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended17
ORDER
The Respondent, Gaylord Chemical Co., LLC, Tuscaloosa,
Alabama, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to recognize and bargain with the
Union as the collective-bargaining representative of unit em-
ployees in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
(b) Failing and refusing to provide the Union with infor-
mation that the Union requests that is relevant and necessary
for it to perform its duties as a collective-bargaining representa-
tive.
(c) Creating new unit job positions without first providing
the Union with notice and an opportunity to bargain.
(d) Interrogating employees about their union sympathies.
(e) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Recognize and bargain on request with the Union.
(b) Furnish the Union with the information that it requested
on August 31, September 23, and October 19, 2010.
(c) Upon the Union’s request, rescind or bargain over the
new unit position of lead shipper.
(d) Make unit employees whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits they suffered as a result of the unilateral creation
of the new unit position of lead shipper, as set forth above in
the Remedy section.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cility in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, copies of the attached notice

17 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopt-
ed by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for
all purposes.
marked “Appendix.”18 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 10, after being signed by
the Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by
the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous places including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper
notices, notices should be distributed electronically, such as by
email, posting on an inranet or an internet site, and/or other
electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates
with its employees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent
has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its
own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and
former employees employed by the Respondent at any time
since October 1, 2010.
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties

WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to recognize and bargain with
the United Steelworkers Union (the Union) as your recognized
collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to provide the Union with in-
formation that it requests that is relevant and necessary for it to
perform its duties as your collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT create new unit job positions without first af-
fording the Union notice and an opportunity to bargain.
WE WILL NOT question you about your union sympathies.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce you in the exercise of your rights under Sec-
tion 7 of the Act, as set forth at the top of this notice.
WE WILL bargain with the Union on its request.

18 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 Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

530
WE WILL furnish the Union with the information that it re-
quested on August 23, September 23, and October 31, 2010,
concerning your terms and conditions of employment.
WE WILL, on the Union’s request, rescind our creation of the
lead shipper position or bargain with the Union over it.
WE WILL make any unit employees whole, with interest, for
any loss of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of
our unilateral creation of the lead shipper position.
GAYLORD CHEMICAL CO., LLC