Hamilton Sundstrand

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Jan 16, 2008

33-CA-015303 (N.L.R.B. Jan. 16, 2008)

JD(ATL)–04–08
Rockford, IL
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
ATLANTA BRANCH OFFICE
HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND
and
INTERNATIONAL UNION UAW and its LOCAL 592
Case 33–CA–15303
Ahavaha Pyrtel, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Max Brittain and Lee Ann Rabe, Esqs., for the
Respondent.
Mr. Ted Dever, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
Statement of the Case
GEORGE CARSON II, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in Peoria, Illinois,
on November 13, 2007, pursuant to a complaint that issued on April 30, 2007.1 The complaint
alleges that the Respondent failed and refused to provide the Union with requested relevant
information in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act. The
Respondent’s answer denies any violation of the Act. I find that the Respondent violated the Act
as alleged in the complaint.
On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and
after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the
following
Findings of Fact
I. Jurisdiction
Hamilton Sundstrand, the Company, is a Delaware corporation engaged in the business
of aerospace product design and manufacturing at multiple national and international locations
including its facilities in Rockford, Illinois. The Company annually purchases and receives goods
and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Illinois. The
Respondent admits, and I find and conclude, that it is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
The Respondent admits, and I find and conclude, that International Union UAW and its
Local 592, the Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

1 All dates are in 2006 unless otherwise indicated. The charge was filed on February 5, 2007.
JD(ATL)–04–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
2
II. Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
A. Background
The Company, headquartered in Windsor Locks, Connecticut, has manufacturing
facilities throughout the world. Approximately 2300 employees work at various facilities in
Rockford, Illinois, including the Plant 6 campus, at which Plant 6 and several other numbered
plants are located and at which some 2000 employees work, and Plant 1, which is located a few
miles from the Plant 6 campus and at which some 300 employees work.
Employees of the Company wear red identification badges. Individuals working at the
Rockford facilities who are employed by various contractors and are not employees of the
Company wear yellow identification badges. Yellow badge employees are all temporary and
include highly skilled engineers, summer hire students who are pursuing degrees in fields
unrelated to the Company’s “core business areas,” and other temporary employees hired on an
as needed basis. Dave Pritchett, Manager of Human Resources for Customer Service, testified
that the typical procedure for obtaining a yellow badge employee begins with a Company
manager submitting a statement of work that would set out the “criteria for a person that we
would bring in in a temporary situation.”
The Union has represented employees in the following appropriate unit since 1946:
All hourly paid production and maintenance employees; but excluding all office and shop
clerical employees, nurses, personnel department employees, engineering department
employees, experimental engineers, salaried employees and all supervisory employees.
In the mid-1980s, there were approximately 1500 employees in the bargaining unit, and
in 2000 there were approximately 900 employees in the unit. The current bargaining unit
consists of about 475 employees. In the 1980’s the Company relocated several operations from
Rockford, some to other locations in the United States and some to locations outside of the
United States. According to retired UAW International Representative William Penn, at that time
relations between the Company and Union were “at the lowest that I’d ever seen it.” There was
a lockout, a strike, and a period in which the unit employees worked without a contract. There
was a rapprochement in the early 1990s that resulted in inclusion in the collective-bargaining
agreement of language relating to job security for unit employees.
This proceeding concerns an information request regarding yellow badge employees
that is predicated upon Section 19.5, subsection C, Joint Involvement/Job Security, of the
current contract, which is effective from June 25, 2003 until May 18, 2008, and which provides:
In areas where the workload decreases, the Company will make an earnest effort to find
work for affected employees by assigning them to work historically performed by non-
Bargaining Unit employees.
The intent of assigning Bargaining Unit employees to non-traditional work is to prevent
and/or minimize layoffs in the Bargaining Unit. In an attempt to further enhance the
effectiveness of the concept the following is agreed to:
(1) Unless time and circumstances prevent it, the Company will notify the respective
Chief Steward on a weekly basis of all Unit employees assigned to non-traditional work
and the approximate duration of each assignment.
(2) Non-traditional work shall be offered in accordance with seniority in the classification
JD(ATL)–04–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
3
and department affected by a reduction in work force provided they have the ability to
perform the non-traditional work.
(3) The parties recognize that in isolated cases it may not be practical to assign by
seniority. In those cases, discussion with the respective Chief Steward will take place
prior to the assignment. This assignment shall be limited to a maximum of not longer
than 30 calendar days unless mutually agreed to by the Union and Company and shall
not result in an employee being reduced or laid off out of line of seniority.
A listing of laid off employees, General Counsel’s Exhibit 4, shows a total of 73 unit
employees on layoff as of January 29th, 2007. At the hearing, there was testimony regarding
contractual provisions relating to subcontracting and the relocation of work and whether the
reason for the layoff of a particular employee affected the obligation of the Company under
Section 19.5C. After some discussion, the parties stipulated “with regard to the names on
General Counsel’s Exhibit 4,” that the Respondent would not argue that “the laid off employees
are only either from subcontracting or relocation” … and “[t]hat there would be no application of
[Section] 19.5C with respect to the obligation to look for non-traditional job opportunities [f]or
workers laid off because of a decrease in work.” Thus, Section “19.5C would apply relative to …
the earnest effort … to seek non-traditional … jobs for these employees.” At the close of the
hearing, Counsel for the Respondent reconfirmed “[t]hat there are people on there [General
Counsel Exhibit 4] … [t]hat could fall under 19.5C.”
B. Facts
In 2006, the Company began preparations for the relocation of certain machining work
from Rockford to Singapore. Chief Steward Mike Bagley, who works in Plant 1, observed yellow
badge employees copying various blueprints in conjunction with the relocation to Singapore.
On April 10, the Recording Secretary of the Union, Michael Rourke, requested
information relating to yellow badge employees from Amanda Shank who, at that time, was
Manager of Labor Relations. The Union received no response and made a second request on
May 16, to which there was also no response.
On May 18, Union Steward Dave Shade verbally presented to the appropriate first line
supervisors a grievance relating to yellow badge employees performing work that the Union
contended was non-traditional work that could be performed by laid off unit employees. The
grievance was denied, and Chief Steward Bagley carried it to the second step. Senior Human
Resources Representative Jennifer Sutherland, who at that time was a Human Resources
Generalist, sent Bagley an e-mail denying the grievance, but further stating that “[w]e
understand and acknowledge the Union’s concern about yellow badges, but the Company is
operating within the parameters of 19.5. As opportunities arise, the Company will continue to
review the job requirements, responsibilities and duties of assigned work, and we will pursue
non-traditional job opportunities for the union where such assignments make business sense.”
On June 21, Chief Steward Bagley, as provided in the contract, reduced the grievance
to writing and presented it at the third step. The grievance states that the Union was “grieved
over management’s lack of any real effort to find non-traditional work for bargaining unit
employees,” pointing out that “[a]t this time there is an abundance of work of a non-traditional
nature that the company is hiring temporary employees to perform while ignoring the C.B.A.”
The grievance cites Section 19.5C of the contract and requests that the Company “put forth a
good faith effort to find non-traditional work for either laid off Bargaining Unit employees or
those in the Bargaining Unit who have the skills/abilities in the needed areas.”
JD(ATL)–04–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
4
On July 6, at what was supposed to be the third step grievance meeting, Human
Resources Representative Mike Boug, who works at Company headquarters in Connecticut,
was present. The Union learned that Boug had directed Human Resources to remand the
grievance to the second step and instructed that management “find non-traditional work for
some bargaining unit people.” Larry Smith, whose position is not identified in the record,
prepared a list that was forwarded to the Union by Supervisor Willie Smith. Shortly thereafter,
unit employees Al Harring and John Rinaldo were recalled from layoff and began performing
work that had been being performed by “two yellow badge employees in the RSO room.”
After the foregoing settlement of the grievance, Ted Dever, President of the Union,
observed that “more and more” yellow badge employees appeared to be working at the
Rockford facilities. At the hearing, Senior Human Resources Representative Sutherland
confirmed that his observations were correct, explaining that there was “a huge bump” in the
number of yellow badge employees due to the award to the Company of “the 787 program” but
that most of the yellow badge employees were engineers. There is no evidence that the
foregoing information was ever shared with the Union.
On November 3, Recording Secretary Rourke wrote Manager of Labor Relations Shank
a letter that states, in pertinent part:
In order to better represent the contract and our members we are requesting the
following information in regard to the “Yellow Badges” located at plants 1 and plants 6.
In particular we request the following information:
1. Please inform us as to the number of “Yellow Badges.”
2. Where are these “Yellow Badges” working?
3. Who are the “Yellow Badges” working for?
4. What are the “Yellow Badges” job duties?
On November 20, Manager Shank responded to the Union in a letter advising that there
were currently “485 yellow badge contractors.” The letter continues stating:
We do not have any additional information relating to department, supervision or job
duties. We clearly understand the union’s intent for this information. To this end, we will
continue to make an earnest effort to find non-traditional work opportunities when
possible.
The foregoing response made no claim that the request of the Union related to
irrelevant information or that provision of the information would be too burdensome.
On December 13, Rourke wrote Shank stating that her response “falls extremely short
of adequate” in that it only responded to one of the four specific requests and repeating that the
Union was requesting the remaining information “in order to better represent our members and
uphold the Collective Bargaining Agreement.” It closes by noting that, if the Company would
provide the remaining information, “we will surely be able to assist with the efforts of finding
non-traditional work to better utilize manpower.”
Shank responded by letter dated December 21, stating that the Union “has been
provided all information available in regards to the yellow badge information request” and
restating the commitment of the Company to “continue to make an earnest effort to find non-
traditional work opportunities when possible.”
JD(ATL)–04–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
5
On February 5, 2007, the Union filed the charge herein and, on February 16, 2007,
President Dever wrote Cheryl Worden, the new Manager of Labor Relations, restating the
Union’s need for the information and explaining that “[w]ithout the requested information it is
impossible for the Union to determine whether there are non-traditional work opportunities that
Bargaining Unit employees could be performing in order to help minimize reductions.” Worden
verbally responded that the Company was not going to supply the information.
Union President Dever testified that, based upon his observations, yellow badge
employees were performing work that bargaining unit employees could perform, and that the
Union made the foregoing request in order to determine “whether there were any temporary
employees performing work that we thought that we were capable of performing.” He explained
that the request regarding where the yellow badge employees were working would enable the
Union to identify the union representative who would be able “verify what the actual job duties
are that the yellow badge was performing.” President Dever explained that the Union needed to
know for whom the yellow badge employees were working in order to confirm with the
respective supervisor whether the yellow badge employees had completed the tasks for which
they were brought in or whether they were “being given other types of tasks that don’t fall under
the statement of work.” Dave Pritchett, Manager of Human Resources for Customer Service,
acknowledged that the day to day work of yellow badge employees was overseen by Company
supervisors. The request relating to yellow badge employees’ job duties would determine
whether bargaining unit employees were capable of performing the work.
Senior Human Resources Representative Sutherland admitted that Human Resources
does not look for non-traditional job opportunities “[o]nce the decision is made by someone to
staff with non-employees, yellow badges.” Requests for temporary employees are made by
individual managers and would be reflected on a request or purchase order. Sutherland pointed
out that “these are typically engineering related jobs,” and that Human Resources does not
know what needs have been identified by various managers for yellow badge employees. She
testified that the “requests or purchase orders” are not filed with Human Resources or in any
central location, that the Company does not “have a centralized repository.” On cross
examination, Sutherland was reminded of that testimony and asked, “Where are they
maintained?” Sutherland answered, “There are three separate systems. One is J.D. Edwards,
one is Azure, and one is Console.” There was no further questioning of Sutherland regarding
the “separate systems” that she identified. Sutherland acknowledged that the Company has an
e-mail system that permits an individual to send a single e-mail to multiple recipients.
C. Analysis and Concluding Findings
The complaint alleges that the information sought by the Union regarding yellow badge
employees in its letter dated November 3 was relevant and that the failure and refusal of the
Respondent to provide that information violated the Act.
Although information relating to bargaining unit employees is presumptively relevant, a
union must make a showing of relevance and necessity when requesting information relating to
nonunit employees. As explained by the Board in Frito-Lay, Inc., 333 NLRB 1296 (2001):
It is well established that when a union seeks information concerning matters outside
the bargaining unit, the union is required to make a showing of relevancy and necessity.
See, e.g., Public Service Electric & Gas Co., 323 NLRB 1182, 1186 (1997), enfd. 157
F.3d 222 (3d Cir. 1998). But the Board has made it clear that the burden of establishing
relevancy and necessity in this context “is not an exceptionally heavy one, requiring only
that a showing be made of a ‘probability that the desired information is relevant, and that
JD(ATL)–04–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
6
it would be of use to the union in carrying out its statutory duties and responsibilities.’”
Id., quoting NLRB v. Acme Industrial Co., 385 U.S. 432, 437 (1967).
Counsel for the General Counsel points out that the Respondent never claimed that the
information sought was not relevant or that producing it would be burdensome. Rather, the
Respondent claimed that it had provided “all information available.” Counsel argues that the
evidence adduced at the hearing establishes that the information sought is relevant and can be
made available, albeit not from a single central location.
The Respondent, although never advising the Union that it contended that the
information sought was not relevant, argues that the requested information is not relevant
because it related to nonunit employees and nonunit work. Contrary to that argument, Section
19.5C of the contract, in which the Respondent agrees to make an “earnest effort” to find non-
traditional work in order to “prevent and/or minimize layoffs in the Bargaining Unit,” by its very
terms relates to nonunit work that would otherwise be performed by nonunit employees. As
hereinafter discussed, I find that the information sought by the Union is relevant to its
enforcement of the contract.
The Respondent’s brief asserts that the Union “for the first time revealed to the
Company its reasoning for requesting the Yellow Badge worker information” after filing the
charge herein, citing General Counsel’s Exhibit 10, the letter of February 16, 2007, to the new
Manager of Labor Relations, Cheryl Worden, in which President Dever specifically explained
that “[w]ithout the requested information it is impossible for the Union to determine whether
there are non-traditional work opportunities that Bargaining Unit employees could be performing
in order to help minimize reductions.” The Respondent’s brief neglects acknowledging that,
prior to Worden becoming Manager, there was no need for an explanation. Former Manager
Shank was fully aware of the reason for the Union’s November 3 information request and its
relevance with regard to administration of the collective-bargaining agreement. A union need
not cite particular provisions of the contract it seeks to enforce. There is no requirement that a
union “say the ‘magic words,’ in order to find that the information is relevant to the Union's right
to police the contract.” Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co., 261 NLRB 27, 38 (1981), citing
The East Dayton Tool and Die Co., 239 NLRB 141, 142 (1978). Manager Shank’s response of
November 20 confirms that the Respondent understood “the union’s intent for this information.”
Shank did not dispute the relevance of the information. Paraphrasing the contract, she assured
the Union that the Respondent would “continue to make an earnest effort to find non-traditional
work opportunities when possible.” Worden, after receipt of Dever’s letter, did not dispute the
relevance of the information, but the information was not provided.
The Respondent, in its brief, cites the testimony of former International Representative
Penn and President Dever in which they acknowledged that the contract does not require the
Respondent to create non-traditional jobs and then argues that “creation of a [non-traditional
job] position is precisely what happens when Yellow Badge workers are staffed on Hamilton
Sundstrand projects” and that unit employees “have no entitlement to those positions.” The
foregoing argument is fallacious. The issue is not the absence of an obligation to create non-
traditional jobs or entitlement of unit employees to a newly created position. The issue is the
entitlement of the Union to information regarding non-traditional work. The absence of a
contractual provision requiring the creation of positions does not alter the 19.5C contractual
obligation to make an “earnest effort to find work for affected employees by assigning them to
work historically performed by non-Bargaining Unit employees.” Information establishing
whether the Respondent is fulfilling that contractual obligation is relevant. The Respondent’s
argument that Section 19.5C does not relate to work being performed in positions filled by
yellow badge employees ignores the obvious. If the Respondent had complied with the contract
JD(ATL)–04–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
7
in the first instance and made an earnest effort to locate non-traditional work, as it did
retroactively in July pursuant to Boug’s direction, it might have been unnecessary to hire a
yellow badge employee to perform the work. The information sought by the Union would
establish what non-traditional work was being performed by yellow badge employees and
whether unit employees were capable of performing that work.
The Respondent’s brief does not mention or discuss the grievance that was settled in
response to the direction given to management at Rockford by Human Resources
Representative Mike Boug, who works at the Respondent’s headquarters in Windsor Locks,
Connecticut, to “find non-traditional work for some bargaining unit people.” As the General
Counsel’s brief points out, citing Island Creek Coal Co., 292 NLRB 480 (1989), it is not
necessary that a union be able to prove that the contract has been violated in order to obtain
the desired information. Although the Respondent argues that unit employees “have no
entitlement to” positions filled by yellow badge employees, the settlement of the grievance filed
by Chief Steward Bagley that resulted in the recall from layoff of two unit employees to perform
non-traditional work that had been being performed by two yellow badge employees suggests
otherwise. This case relates to an information request, not the merit of a potential grievance.
“The Board evaluates information requests on the basis of the relevance of information sought,
not the merit of a grievance.” Pet Dairy, 345 NLRB 1222, 1224 (2005).
The Respondent’s brief also does not address the admission of Senior Human
Resources Representative Sutherland that Human Resources does not look for non-traditional
job opportunities “[o]nce the decision is made by someone to staff with non-employees, yellow
badges.” That admission effectively contradicts the assurance in Manager Shank’s November
20 letter that the Respondent, at Rockford, was continuing to make “an earnest effort to find
non-traditional work opportunities when possible.”
The Respondent cites San Diego Newspaper Guild [Union-Tribune Publishing Co.], 220
NLRB 1226 (1975), for the proposition that a request for information regarding nonunit
employees requires a showing that the information “is relevant to bargainable issues.” That
case is inapposite in that it was held that the information sought did not directly affect
bargaining unit members. In this case the information sought pursuant to a contractual
provision does directly affect bargaining unit employees. Manager Shank assured the Union
that the Respondent was making “an earnest effort to find non-traditional work opportunities
when possible.” It is well settled that a union is not required to accept an employer’s assurance
that it is complying with a collective-bargaining agreement. “[T]he union is entitled to conduct its
own investigation and reach its own conclusions.” Reiss Viking, 312 NLRB 622, 625 (1993).
See also Shoppers Food Warehouse, 315 NLRB 258, 259 (1994). The rationale underlying that
entitlement is clearly shown in this case in which two unit employees were recalled to perform
work that had been being performed by two yellow badge employees following the identification
of non-traditional work in the July settlement of the Union’s grievance. The failure of
management in Rockford to have identified that work prior to the intervention of Boug casts
doubt upon the earnestness of the efforts of Rockford management.
Prior to this hearing, the Respondent had claimed only, as noted in the Respondent’s
letter of November 20 and more explicitly stated in its letter of December 21, that the Union
“has been provided all information available in regards to the yellow badge information request.”
I find it incomprehensible that this international corporation was or is unaware of where yellow
badge employees are working or what work they are performing. It may well be true that the
Respondent does not have the information requested by the Union in precisely the form
requested by the Union, but that does not relieve the Respondent of its obligation to provide
relevant information.
JD(ATL)–04–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
8
Although the Respondent informed the Union that it had been “provided all information
available in regards to the yellow badge information request,” the Respondent, in its brief,
makes no such claim. Sutherland admitted that, although requests or purchase orders for
temporary personnel were not maintained at one centralized location, they were maintained
on”three separate systems … J.D. Edwards, … Azure, and … Console.” Sutherland was not
questioned further in that regard, but her response confirms that the Respondent has systems
that keep track of the temporary personnel that it is utilizing. Any claim that this Respondent, an
international corporation, does know the services for which it is paying and by whom and where
those services are being performed is incredible. When an employer has records that are
responsive to a union’s information request but not in precisely the form sought by union, “it
must make some effort to ‘inform’ the union so that the union may, if necessary, modify its
request accordingly.” Yeshiva University, 315 NLRB 1245, 1248 (1994). Sutherland also
acknowledged that the Respondent’s e-mail system permits an individual to send a single e-
mail to multiple recipients. Thus, as the General Counsel’s brief points out, she could have
forwarded the Union’s request to all managers who would then identify whether they were
utilizing any yellow badge employees, and, if so, provide the request or purchase order
pursuant to which the yellow badge employees were working.
The information requested by the Union is relevant and necessary to assure that the
Respondent is complying with the contract. The Respondent, by failing and refusing to provide
the Union with the requested information relating to yellow badge employees violated Section
8(a)(5) of the Act.
Conclusions of Law
By failing and refusing to provide the Union with the information it requested on
November 3, 2006, said information being relevant and necessary to the Union as the
collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit, the Respondent
has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1)
and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Remedy
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I find
that it must be ordered to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
The Respondent having failed and refused to provide the Union with information
reflecting where at Plants 1 and 6 the yellow badge employees are working, the Hamilton
Sundstrand manager or supervisor for whom they are working, and what their job duties are, it
must promptly supply that information. The Respondent must also post an appropriate notice.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the
following recommended2

2 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations,
the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the
Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all
purposes.
JD(ATL)–04–08
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
9
ORDER
The Respondent, Hamilton Sundstrand, Rockford, Illinois, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Union UAW and its Local 592 by
failing and refusing to provide requested information that is relevant and necessary to that
Union as the collective-bargaining representative of its hourly paid production and maintenance
employees.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in
the exercise of rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Promptly furnish International Union UAW and its Local 592 with information
reflecting where at Plants 1 and 6 the yellow badge employees are working, for whom they are
working, and what their job duties are.
(b) Within 14 days after service by the Subregion, post at its facilities in Rockford,
Illinois, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”3 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Subregion 33, after being signed by the Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60
consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the
notices are not altered, 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 November 3, 2006.
(c) 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.
Dated, Washington, D.C., January 16, 2008.
_____________________
George Carson II
Administrative Law Judge

3 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals, the words in
the notice reading “POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD”
shall read “POSTED PURSUANT TO A JUDGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS ENFORCING AN ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.”
JD(ATL)–04–08
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 behalf
Act together with other employees for your benefit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activities
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local
Union 549 by failing and refusing to provide requested information that is relevant and
necessary to the Union as the collective-bargaining representative of our hourly paid production
and maintenance employees.
WE WILL promptly furnish the Union with information reflecting where at Plants 1 and 6 the
yellow badge employees are working, for whom they are working, and what their job duties are.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce any of you in the
exercise of your rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative) (Title)
The National Labor Relations Board is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to enforce the National Labor
Relations Act. It conducts secret-ballot elections to determine whether employees want union representation and it
investigates and remedies unfair labor practices by employers and unions. To find out more about your rights under
the Act and how to file a charge or election petition, you may speak confidentially to any agent with the Board’s
Regional Office set forth below. You may also obtain information from the Board’s website: www.nlrb.gov.
300 Hamilton Boulevard, Suite 200, Peoria, IL 61602-1246
(309) 671–7080, Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE AND MUST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE
THIS NOTICE MUST REMAIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND MUST
NOT BE ALTERED, DEFACED, OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS
NOTICE OR COMPLIANCE WITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OFFICE’S
COMPLIANCE OFFICER, (309) 671-7085