Induction Services, Inc

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 7, 1989

292 N.L.R.B. 863 (N.L.R.B. 1989)

INDUCTION SERVICES 863
Induction Services , Inc and International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America , UAW Case 7-
CA-27306
February 7, 1989
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT AND HIGGINS
On November 17, 1988, Administrative Law
Judge Irwin Kaplan issued the attached decision
The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting
brief
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel
The Board has considered the decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and brief and has
decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, I and
conclusions and to adopt the recommended Order
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the
recommended Order of the administrative law
judge and orders that the Respondent, Induction
Services, Inc, Warren, Michigan, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action
set forth in the Order
unlawfully refused to sign a collective bargaining agree
ment arrived at by the parties and that the Respondent
thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
The Respondent filed an answer conceding, inter alia,
that the Union is the exclusive collective bargaining rep
resentative for Respondents employees in an appropriate
unit and also conceded the supervisory and agency status
of certain individuals named in the complaint It denied
that it committed any unfair labor practices In particu
lar, the Respondent contends that the agreement reached
by the parties was subject to the approval of Respond
ent's legal counsel," which condition had not been ob
tamed
Based on the entire record, including my observation
of the demeanor of the witnesses as they testified, and
after careful consideration of the posttnal briefs, I make
the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I JURISDICTION
The Respondent is a Michigan corporation with its
principal office and place of business in Warren, Michi
gan, where it is engaged in the induction heat treating of
automotive parts During the fiscal year ending June 30,
1987, a representative timeframe, the Respondent, inter
alia, shipped goods and materials valued in excess of
$50,000 from its locations in Michigan directly to points
located outside the State of Michigan
The Respondent admits , and I find , that it is an em
ployer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec
tion 2(2) of the Act
' The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge s credibility find
mgs The Board s established policy is not to overrule an administrative
law judges credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all
the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect 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
Dwight R Kirksey Esq, for the General Counsel
Richard J Fritz Esq (Stnngan Fritz Kreger Ahearn
Bennett & Hunsinger PC), of Detroit, Michigan, for
the Respondent
Ramona Allison , International Representative , of Warren,
Michigan , for the Charging Party
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
IRWIN KAPLAN Administrative Law Judge This case
was heard in Detroit, Michigan, on January 19, 1988
The underlying charges were filed on September 10,
1987, by the International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, UAW, and its Local 360 (the Union or Charg
Ing Party) against Induction Services, Inc (Respondent)
alleging the Respondent engaged in conduct in violation
of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Rela
tions Act (the Act) These charges gave rise to a coin
plaint and notice of hearing dated October 19, 1987 The
gravamen of the complaint is that the Respondent has
292 NLRB No 98
II THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Background and Sequence of Events
On July 21, 1986, the Union was certified pursuant to
a Board conducted election as the exclusive collective
bargaining representative for Respondent's production
and maintenance employees (G C Exh 1 (c), par 9) On
or about October 1 1986 the parties first met to negoti
ate their initial collective bargaining agreement James
Sawyer, the Union s chief negotiator was unable to
attend that initial session and his place was taken by
Romona Allison She was joined by Bernice Vander
Bosh, the then president of Local 360, and two employee
committee members Alberta McGow and Helen To
majko The Respondent was represented by David
DeArment, its owner and president Basically , all that
occurred at that first session was that Allison presented
the Union s proposals and explained them on a page by
page basis (G C Exh 2)
The parties met again approximately 1 week later
Sawyer attended this meeting as the Union's chief nego
tiator He was joined by McGow and Tomajko
(McGow and Tomajko attended all the sessions but nei
ther one testified) The Respondent was again represent
ed only by DeArment As testified to by Sawyer, he
asked DeArment if he had an attorney and the latter re
sponded in the negative stating that he could not afford
an attorney Sawyer then set the ground rules The par
864 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ties negotiated from the Union s proposals (G C Exh 2)
as a frame of reference and as they agreed on a proposal
they were to initial it signifying their tentative agreement
until they reached a total package That final package
was subject to employee ratification Although DeAr
ment largely corroborated Sawyer s account including
that portion dealing with the costliness of retaining an at
torney to negotiate, DeArment also asserted that he told
Sawyer that he would have his attorney look over the
Agreement after its over "
In all, Sawyer attended 12 bargaining sessions DeAr
ment attended most of these sessions and at times he was
accompanied by Plant Manager Michael Oberg and Sales
Manager Eric Lorentzen At the two or three bargaining
meetings not attended by DeArment, the Respondent
was represented by Oberg and Lorentzen
In the period covering the 12 bargaining sessions, the
subject of the company attorney came up again only in
connection with the managements rights provision and
arbitration As to these sessions , DeArment told Sawyer
he wanted to consult his attorney According to Sawyer,
this was the first time that DeArment said anything
about having an attorney Sawyer testified that they
tabled further discussion on the managements rights pro
vision to give DeArment's attorney an opportunity to ex
amine the Union s proposal DeArment canceled the next
meeting because he was unable to reach his attorney
The parties reached agreement on managements rights
and arbitration on January 12 1987 1 as signified, inter
alia, by their initials on that date (G C Exh 3, pp 6-8)
In early 1987 the Union s regional director assigned
Allison to replace Sawyer to service Respondents unit
employees Thus, on February 5 Sawyer accompanied
Allison to Respondents facility and introduced her to
Oberg and Lorentzen From that day forward, Allison
served as the Union s chief spokesperson at the bargain
ing sessions DeArment did not attend the February 5
meeting and only later in May did he briefly meet with
Allison to confirm a final offer Sawyer did not attend
any meeting after February 5
Allison was told by Oberg and Lorentzen that before
they would initial any provision they had to have DeAr
ment s approval After several bargaining sessions (prob
ably March) Allison suggested that Oberg and Lorent
zen invite their attorney to attend because they were
having problems with contract language and she Alli
son, had accused them of not bargaining in good faith
This was the first time that an attorney was mentioned
while Allison was involved in the negotiations and it was
Allison who introduced the subject Allison testified that
Oberg responded that the Company would wait until the
contract was complete and then they would have their
attorney read it and make sure it was what they had
agreed to According to Oberg, he told Allison that
after the parties reached a final agreement the contract
would be turned over to the company attorney for his
"interpretation and approval
By late May, the parties had reached agreement on all
the contract provisions except sickness and accident (S
and A) benefits Allison asked Oberg and Lorentzen to
` All dates refer to 1987 unless otherwise indicated
have DeArment join them at the bargaining table to con
firm that the Union had the Company s final offer
DeArment was then called in and informed Allison that
he was not going to spend another dime and that the
Union had the Company s final offer Allison asked
DeArment whether he wanted the Union to take this
final offer to the unit employees for a ratification and the
latter responded in the affirmative
On Sunday, May 31 the bargaining unit voted to
reject the contract because it did not contain S and A
benefits On Monday, June 1, Allison called Oberg and
told him that the membership had rejected the contract
and asked for another meeting to resume negotiations
Oberg agreed to meet that Thursday although he indi
cated that he did not think there would be any change in
the Company s final offer
Allison and the two union committee members met
with Oberg and Lorentzen on Thursday June 4 as
scheduled The S and A provision was the only out
standing issue separating the parties at that time Howev
er sometime before this meeting began, DeArment told
Oberg that he would be amenable to the S and A bene
fits if the Union allowed foremen and other nonunit indi
viduals to perform setup functions (The unit as certified
expressly includes setup employees) The parties reached
an agreement which (as explained by Allison), in essence,
grandfathered all then current setup employees, but per
mitted certain named nonunit individuals including
David DeArment and Mike Oberg, to also perform setup
work The agreement was memorialized on company sta
tionery as an attachment to the collective bargaining
agreement (See attachment to G C Exh 4 company let
terhead dated June 4, 1987) In turn the Respondent
agreed to provide Accident and Sickness of $10000 per
week for a maximum of twenty six (26) weeks (G C
Exh 3, p 26 art XX (d) Tr 31 )
Allison told Oberg and Lorentzen that another ratifi
cation meeting would be held that Sunday June 7 They
questioned Allison about the effective dates for wages
sickness and accident, life insurance, and other benefits
to which the latter responded that the contract would be
effective on the date of ratification The company repre
sentatives noted that there might be some problems re
flecting the wage increases in the computer on Monday
morning and it might take 1 to 2 weeks before employees
actually received the wage increases Allison told them
that she would have the contract typed and prepared for
signature but it might take a few weeks She also prom
ised to have a copy of the contract for the Company s
attorney for his perusal to make sure that it was as they
agreed to (Tr 40 )
The unit employees ratified the contract on June 7 Al
lison so advised Oberg the following morning and she
also repeated her promise of the previous week that she
would try to have the final contract prepared for signa
lure and to meet with him in about 2 weeks, and Oberg
agreed
About June 21 Allison visited the Respondents facility
and met with Oberg and Lorentzen She handed them
three or four copies of the final agreement and noted
that one copy was for the Company s attorney to look
INDUCTION SERVICES
over Allison also urged Oberg and Lorentzen to get
back to her as quickly as they could " Oberg told Alli
son that it would probably take 2 or 3 weeks Approxi
mately 3 weeks later Allison called Oberg and inquired
whether the Company was ready to sign the agreement
Oberg told Allison that the matter was in DeArment s
hands and that she, Allison, could expect to hear from
the Company in a few days
The Company did not contact Allison and the latter
was unsuccessful in reaching DeArment although she
called twice a week over the next 4 or 5 weeks Further,
Allison, by letter dated August 25, wrote to DeArment
asking to get together to sign the agreement and noting
that the Company has not responded to her numerous"
phone messages (G C Exh 7) The Company did not
respond to Allison s letter and she filed the instant
charges on September 10
Soon after the charges were filed, Lorentzen phoned
Allison and apologized for the long delay but noted that
the attorney was having some problems with the agree
ment and asked for a meeting About September 25 Alli
son along with the two union committee members, met
with Oberg and Lorentzen The company representatives
handed Allison a copy of a letter sent by Respondent's
attorney, Richard Fritz, to DeArment containing the at
torney's comments regarding certain provisions in the
agreement (G C Exh 6) This included certain changes
in dealing with seniority, leaves of absences, and vacs
tions which Fritz indicated would be preferable to the
Company
At the September 25 meeting, the Union indicated a
willingness to clarify the contract language and agree to
the few changes proposed by Attorney Fritz and to do
so in a letter of understanding, provided the Company
agreed to modify the provision dealing with temporary
employees The provision previously negotiated permit
ted the Company to consider" temporary employees for
full employment after 60 days The Union now proposed
that temporary employees will be full time employees'
after the 60 day period The Company rejected the
Union s proposal and refused to make any changes re
garding temporary employees from the previously
agreed on provision Allison then reverted to her earlier
position and insisted that the Company sign the agree
ment as negotiated and ratified The parties have not ne
gotiated since September 25
B Discussion and Conclusions
The central issue in this case is whether DeArment or
any other company official conveyed to the Union that
the Respondent's attorney s approval was a condition
precedent to any final and binding collective bargaining
agreement Such notice must be clearly or unambiguous
ly conveyed See generally Cablevision Industries, 283
NLRB 22 (1987), University of Bridgeport, 229 NLRB
1074, 1082-1083 (1977) I find, largely on the basis of
credibility, that at no time material had the Respondent
made the contract subject to his attorney s approval 2 At
2 The General Counsel s case rests largely on the credibility of Allison
and Sawyer I found them both to be responsive consistent plausible and
forthright In particular it is noted that Allison s critical testimony re
865
best, the Respondent merely indicated that before he
would execute any contract, he would have his attorney
look over the document to confirm that it comported to
what the parties negotiated and agreed Compare, Park
view Furniture Mfg Co 284 NLRB 947 (1987) (the cru
cial inquiry is whether the parties reached agreement)
The uncontradicted and credited testimony disclosed
that Sawyer asked DeArment at their first bargaining
session together whether he was going to have an attor
ney present at the negotiations DeArment responded in
the negative, stating, in essence, that it was too costly
(The parties met one time prior to this meeting, but Alli
son substituted for DeArment and nothing was then said
about an attorney )
Even DeArment s testimony falls short of reasonably
conveying that his attorney had any veto power Thus,
DeArment testified that he told Sawyer that he could
not afford an attorney to negotiate at that time, but he
(the attorney) would look over (emphasis added) every
thing we did (Tr 130) In context, and based on the
entire record I am persuaded that DeArment merely re
served the right to consult an attorney at any time and to
ensure that the contract reflected his agreement Indeed,
this happened in regard to the managements rights and
arbitration provisions Thus, before DeArment initialed
those provisions signifying his agreement, he told
Sawyer that he had to consult his attorney and then can
celed one meeting because he was unable to reach his at
torney During negotiations, DeArment made no other
reference to his attorney
As noted previously on or about February 5, 1987
Allison replaced Sawyer as the Union s chief negotiator
Allison also denied that she was told that the Company s
attorney had to approve the contract She testified credi
bly that several meetings later Oberg and Lorentzen
told her for the first time that an attorney would look
over the final document to make sure that it conformed
to their agreement Although Oberg and Lorentzen testi
feed that they also told Allison that the contract was sub
ject to their attorney s interpretation and approval, I
reject their testimony as unreliable I found them both to
be elusive vague unresponsive, implausible, to have ex
hibited poor recall and they were otherwise of un
impressive demeanor It is noted, for example, as ac
knowledged by Oberg, that neither he nor Lorentzen
said anything about an attorney until the fourth or fifth
bargaining session with Allison and only after the latter
had become frustrated with their inexperience It is un
disputed that on that occasion Allison urged Oberg and
Lorentzen to invite their (unnamed) attorney to partici
pate in the negotiations Oberg testified that at the time
counting the events after the first ratification meeting went virtually un
contradicted On the basis of demeanor factors and my assessment of
their overall testimony I credit the testimony of Allison and Sawyer Al
though it is also noted that McGow and Tomajko members of the union
bargaining committee did not testify I am unpersuaded that a sufficient
basis has been demonstrated to support an adverse inference as argued by
Respondent in its brief It appears that McGow and Tomaiko were still
employed by Respondent at the time of hearing and in any event there is
no basis for inferring that McGow and Tomajko [were] not equally avail
able to be called as a witness by both Respondent and the General Coun
sel Wayne Construction 259 NLRB 571 fn 1 (1981)
866 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in question he was uncertain who the attorney was or
whether an attorney had been retained (Tr 120-121 )
In the circumstances of this case, I find it highly un
likely and implausible that Oberg and/or Lorentzen told
Allison that approval' of the contract by their attorney
was required given their vague testimony about the at
torney s identity, and that they admittedly said nothing
to Allison about an attorney until the fourth or fifth bar
gaining session and only after the latter introduced the
subject
Having determined that the contract was not subject
to the approval of Respondent's attorney I turn now to
consider whether the parties reached a final and binding
agreement
The credited testimony disclosed that by late May
1987, the parties reached a tentative agreement on all the
terms and conditions of a contract with the exception of
sickness and accident benefits It is undisputed that Alli
son asked Oberg and Lorentzen to summon their pnnci
pal (DeArment) because she wanted to hear it from
DeArment himself that he had made his final offer Thus,
DeArment joined the other negotiators briefly and de
Glared that he would not provide another dime and that
he had made his final offer
It is undisputed that the Company understood that any
final agreement had to be ratified by the unit employees
At the close of the session in late May, Allison told the
company officials that their final offer (without sickness
and accident benefits) would be presented to the mem
bership the upcoming Sunday for a ratification vote In
fact, DeArment first acknowledged that had the mem
bership voted in favor the parties had a contract (Tr
137-139) Nothing was said about the company attorney
having to approve the agreement at that time Although
DeArment retreated moments later (Tr 140), I do not
credit his changed testimony In testifying on this critical
point (as in other areas), I found DeArment elusive
vague , unresponsive, inconsistent conclusionary and less
than forthright
As noted previously, the union membership rejected
the contract over the S and A provision The Company
was officially advised the following morning and a meet
ing was arranged for June 4 to resume negotiations
DeArment met with Oberg and Lorentzen sometime
before the June 4 bargaining session and authorized them
to agree to sickness and accident benefits if the Union
would allow nonunit individuals to perform setups
At the June 4 session, Oberg, pursuant to DeArment s
instructions, offered the Union the tradeoff and the par
ties then reached full agreement subject only to employ
ee ratification Allison and Oberg signified their respec
tive agreement by their initials (G C Exh 3, p 26, art
XX, sec 91 (d)) and a so called memorandum of under
standing dealing with setup prepared by Respondent on
company stationery (See attachment to G C Exh 4
dated June 4 1987) Oberg belatedly acknowledged that
every provision he initialed had the approval of DeAr
ment (Tr 123) As stated by DeArment, Oberg s initials
would be just as well if I had done it ' (Tr 144) The
undisputed and credited testimony disclosed that while
the parties discussed and understood that the contract
would be effective on ratification Oberg told Allison
that it might take the computer approximately 1 or 2
weeks to reflect the new payroll changes Allison did not
deem any such delay a problem because the employees
would then be paid retroactively Thus, as noted above,
the parties reached a full agreement on June 4, subject
only to employee ratification
The following day, Allison communicated the results
of the favorable ratification vote to Oberg on the tele
phone and she also told Oberg that she would meet with
him in a few weeks after the Union had prepared and
typed the contract in final form for signature Oberg
agreed but reminded Allison of probable computer prob
lems with the payroll
It is well settled that an employer violates Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by refusing to execute a writ
ten contract incorporating the terms and conditions of a
collective bargaining agreement reached with the Union
representing its employees H P Heinz Co v NLRB,
311 U S 514, 525-526 (1941), NLRB v Strong, 393 U S
357, 359 (1969) However, where, as here , a final agree
ment was subject to employee ratification, the employ
er's obligation does not arise until the condition is satis
fled (although the employer is not free to challenge the
ratification procedure) See, e g, Ben Franklin National
Bank, 278 NLRB 986 (1986), Childers Products Co, 276
NLRB 709 (1985), Newton Corp, 280 NLRB 350 (1986),
enfd 819 F 2d 677 (6th Cir 1987)
Having found that the parties reached a complete ten
tative agreement subject only to employee ratification,
which condition became satisfied on June 7, 1987, 1 fur
ther find that the Respondent immediately became obli
gated to sign a written document embodying the terms
and conditions of its agreement when such document
was presented and the Union so requested See John
Morrell & Co, 268 NLRB 304, 306 (1983) Gentzer Tool
& Dye Corp, 268 NLRB 330 332 (1983) Felbro Inc 274
NLRB 1268 (1985) enfd in relevant part 795 F 2d 705
(9th Cir 1986)
The record further revealed that about June 23 Alli
son appeared at Respondents facility armed with typed
copies of the final agreement She met with and provided
three or four copies to Oberg and Lorentzen and noted
that one of the copies was for the attorney As noted
previously, the Company s attorney was to ensure that
the contract reflected the agreement of the parties Alli
son asked Oberg to have the agreement signed and to get
back to her as quickly as possible Oberg indicated that
he would probably" get back to her in 2 or 3 weeks
Allison called Oberg approximately 3 weeks later and
was told that DeArment was handling the matter and
that he would be getting back to her in a few days
DeArment did not reach out for Allison nor did he
return her numerous calls over the next 4 to 6 weeks
until the instant charges were filed
In September after the instant charges were filed, Re
spondent asked Allison for certain changes recommended
by its attorney There is no evidence nor does the
record disclose that the document that Allison presented
Oberg about June 23 failed to conform to all the terms
and conditions agreed to by the parties as ratified on
June 7 In these circumstances and on the basis of the
INDUCTION SERVICES 867
entire record, I am persuaded and I find that the Re
spondent s failure to execute the wntten ratified agree
ment as submitted is violative of Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 The Respondent, Induction Services, Inc, is an em
ployer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act and
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act
2 International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW
is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act
3 All full time and regular part time production and
maintenance employees, shipping and receiving employ
ees, setup employees, quality control employees, coil
builder employees, and truckdnvers employed by the
Respondent at its facility located at 24800 Mound Road,
Warren, Michigan, but excluding all office clerical em
ployees professional employees, confidential employees,
managerial employees and guards and supervisors as de
fined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act
4 At all times relevant to this case, the Union has
been and is now the exclusive collective bargaining rep
resentative of the employees in the unit described above
within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act
5 About June 4, 1987, the Respondent and the Union
reached agreement on all the terms and conditions of a
collective bargaining agreement covering the employees
of the Respondent in the above-described unit subject
only to employee ratification, which event occurred on
June 7, 1987
6 About June 23, 1987, the Union submitted the col
lective bargaining agreement referred to in paragraph 5,
above, to Respondent for signature by Respondents rep
resentatives
7 As a consequence of the agreement reached by the
parties as ratified, the Respondent incurred the statutory
obligation to execute a written contract incorporating
that agreement but, since on or about June 23 1987, and
all times thereafter has failed and refused to do so
8 The Respondent by refusing since about June 23
1987, to execute the written contract incorporating the
agreement reached between it and the Union, has failed
and refused to bargain collectively and in good faith
with the exclusive collective bargaining representative of
its employees, and the Respondent thereby has engaged
in, and is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer
tarn unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that it be
required to cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action necessary to effectuate the purposes
and policies of the Act
Having further found that the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing
and refusing to execute a written agreement reached
with the Union, I shall recommend that the Respondent
be ordered to cease and desist and to sign the agreement
Also I shall recommend that the Respondent be ordered
to give effect to the terms of this agreement retroactive
to the effective dates, and that the employees shall be
made whole for losses they may have suffered by reason
of the failure of the Respondent to sign this agreement,3
to be computed in the manner prescribed in Ogle Protec
tion Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), plus interest as pre
scribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB
1173 (1987)
On the basis of the above findings of fact, conclusions
of law, and the entire record, and pursuant to Section
10(c) of the Act, I issue the following recommended4
ORDER
The Respondent, Induction Services, Inc Warren,
Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1 Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively and in good faith
with the International Union, United Automobile, Aero
space and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
UAW, by declining to execute a written agreement em
bodying the terms of the contract fully agreed to on
June 4, 1987, and ratified by employees on June 7, 1987
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with re
straining , 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
effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Sign the collective bargaining agreement containing
the terms and conditions of employment agreed to be
tween the Respondent and the Union on June 4, 1987,
and ratified on June 7, 1987, and give retroactive effect
to its terms and conditions, and make employees whole
for losses, if any, they may have suffered as a result of its
refusal to sign such agreement , in the manner set forth in
the remedy section of this decision
(b) Preserve and, on request, make available to the
Board or its agents for examination and copying all pay
roll records, social security payment records, timecards,
personnel records and reports and all other records nec
essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the
terms of this Order
(c) Post at its Warren, Michigan facility copies of the
attached notice marked Appendix 5 Copies of the
8 The Board may properly prevent the Respondents from gaming an
advantage by their unlawful conduct An order requiring that the em
ployees be made whole for the unlawful repudiation of a collective bar
gaming agreement serves this end NLRB v DMR Corp 795 F 2d 472
123 (5th Ctr 1988) see also John Morrell & Co 268 NLRB 304 (1983)
4 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46 of the Board s
Rules and Regulations th3e findings conclusions and recommended
Order shall as provided in Sec 102 48 of the Rules be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur
poses
6 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 Nation
al 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
868 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
notice , on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 7 , after being signed by the Respondent 's author-
ized representative , shall be posted by the Respondent
immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 consecu-
tive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure
that the notices are not altered , defaced , or covered by
any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20
days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply.
APPENDIX
NOTICE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively regarding
wages , hours, or other terms and conditions of employ-
ment with International Union , United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, UAW as the exclusive representative of our
employees in the following unit:
All full-time and regular part-time production and
maintenance employees , shipping and receiving em-
ployees, quality control employees , coil builder em-
ployees , and truckdrivers employed by us at our fa-
cility located at 24800 Mound Road , Warren,
Michigan ; but excluding all office clerical employ-
ees, confidential employees , managerial employees
and guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT refuse to execute the contract with the
Union that was agreed to on June 4 , 1987, and ratified
by our employees on June 7, 1987.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to give effect to the
terms and provisions of the agreed -on contract with the
Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with , restrain , or coerce employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL sign the collective -bargaining agreement
containing the terms and conditions of employment
agreed to between us and the Union and ratified by our
employees on June 7, 1987.
WE WILL give retroactive effect to its terms and con-
ditions and make our employees whole for losses , if any,
which they have suffered as a result of our refusal to
sign a contract , with interest.
INDUCTION SERVICES, INC.