Keeler Die Cast

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 12, 1999

327 N.L.R.B. 585 (N.L.R.B. 1999)

KEELER DIE CAST 585
Keeler Brass Company, d/b/a Keeler Die Cast and
International Union, United Automobile, Aero-
space and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW), AFL–CIO. Cases 7–CA–39853,
7–CA–40212, 7–CA–40319, and 7–CA–40533
February 12, 1999
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FOX, HURTGEN, AND BRAME
On September 30, 1998, Administrative Law Judge
Wallace H. Nations issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions, a supporting brief, and a
reply brief. The Charging Party filed an opposing brief,
and the General Counsel filed an answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated 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 briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and conclusions and
to adopt the recommended Order.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Keeler Brass Company, d/b/a
Keeler Die Cast, Grand Rapids, Michigan, its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set
forth in the Order.

1 The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge’s credibility
findings. The Board’s established policy is not to overrule an adminis-
trative law judge’s credibility resolutions unless the clear preponder-
ance 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.
We adopt the judge’s finding that the Respondent unlawfully denied
employees a 1997 annual wage increase. However, we do not rely on
Fieldcrest Cannon, 318 NLRB 470 (1995), enf. denied in relevant part
97 F.3d 65 (4th Cir. 1996), which is distinguishable. In Fieldcrest, the
Board found that the employer violated Sec. 8(a)(3) by discriminatorily
withholding a 5.5-percent wage increase from unit employees. In bar-
gaining for a contract, the union sought, but the employer did not offer,
the 5.5-percent increase to the unit. The union then agreed to a 4.5-
percent increase, but both union and employer agreed to reserve their
rights to litigate their positions on the increase. The Board found that
failure to offer the increase to unit employees was in bad faith and
found that it violated Sec. 8(a)(5). The Board ordered a make-whole
remedy for the 8(a)(3) violation. The Fourth Circuit denied enforce-
ment as to the pay raise violations. In his concurring opinion, Judge
Wilkinson emphasized that the parties reached agreement on a smaller
increase for unit employees and that “the Board should have respected
the outcome of the collective bargaining process.” Id. at 97 F.3d at 78.
In the instant case, as the Respondent has acknowledged in its excep-
tions and brief, the Respondent made its decision not to grant the 1997
annual increase without engaging in collective bargaining.
Members Brame and Hurtgen do not rely on Vice President
Mitchell’s May 1997 description of the Union as a “dark cloud on the
horizon” to support a finding of antiunion animus.
In adopting the judge’s unfair labor practice findings regarding the
Respondent’s failure to grant unit employees an annual wage increase,
Member Brame also does not rely on the judge’s analysis of the Re-
spondent’s budget process or on the fact that the Respondent granted a
wage increase to its salaried employees. He further notes that no ex-
ceptions have been filed to the judge’s finding that the Respondent
violated Sec. 8(a)(5) by promulgating a new work rule on May 20,
1997.

Bradley Howell, Esq., for the General Counsel.
David E. Khorey, Esq., of Grand Rapids, Michigan, for the
Respondent.
Michael L. Fayette, Esq., of Grand Rapids, Michigan, for the
Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
WALLACE H. NATIONS, Administrative Law Judge. This
case was tried in Grand Rapids, Michigan, on April 30, 1998.
The original charge in Case 7–CA–39853 was filed on May 23,
1997, and an amended charge in this case was filed on August
15, 1997. The charge in Case 7–CA–40212 was filed on Sep-
tember 15, 1997. The charge in Case 7–CA–40319 was filed on
October 14, 1997, and the charge in Case 7–CA–40533 was
filed on December 24, 1997.1 Following the issuance of sepa-
rate complaints, an order consolidating cases, second amended
consolidated complaint and notice of hearing issued on January
28, 1998.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed
by the parties, I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, Keeler Brass Company, d/b/a Keeler Die
Cast,2 a corporation, engages in the manufacture and nonretail
sale of die cast parts at its facility known as the Stevens Street
facility located in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The Respondent
admits and I find that it is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and
that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background and Issues for Determination
The Respondent, Keeler Brass Company, operates a die cast-
ing plant at 236 Stevens Street in Grand Rapids, Michigan,
under the assumed name of Keeler Die Cast. At all material
times, the Respondent has also owned and operated two other
plants in the Grand Rapids area—a plant located at 955 God-
frey Street, Grand Rapids (the Godfrey Street plant) and a plant
located at 2929 32d Street, Kentwood, Michigan, under the
assumed name of FKI Automotive (the Kentwood plant). On
October 7, 1996, the International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(the Union or UAW) filed a petition to represent the production
and maintenance employees of the Respondent’s Stevens Street
plant. A stipulated election was conducted on December 12,
1996, in which a majority designated the Union as their collec-
tive-bargaining representative of a unit of production and main-
tenance employees. The Respondent filed objections to the
election on December 19, 1996. After a hearing was conducted
1 All dates are in 1997 unless otherwise indicated.
2 At the hearing it was stipulated that the correct name of the Re-
spondent is Keeler Brass Company, doing business as Keeler Die Cast.
327 NLRB No. 112
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 586
on January 29 and 30, the hearing officer’s report and recom-
mendations to the Board was issued on May 14, in which the
hearing officer overruled the objections to the election and
recommended that a certification of representative issue. On
September 3, the Board issued its Decision and Certification of
Representative in which it adopted the findings and recommen-
dation of the hearing officer and certified the Union as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative in the following unit:

All full-time and regular part-time production and mainte-
nance employees including all leadmen, quality auditors and
material handling clerks employed by the Employer at its fa-
cility located at 236 Stevens Street, SW, Grand Rapids,
Michigan; but excluding all office clerical employees, quality
analysts, technical employees, professional employees, casual
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.

Thereafter, the Respondent sought to “test the certification”
by refusing to meet and bargain with the Union. The Board in
Keeler Die Cast, 325 NLRB 496 (1998) granted a Motion for
Summary Judgment, and ruled that the Respondent did not
raise any issues which could not have been raised in the repre-
sentation case, and concluded that the Respondent had violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by refusing to meet and bar-
gain with the Charging Party Union. At the time of hearing in
the instant proceeding, counsel for the Respondent indicated
that he had filed notice of appeal with the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals. In the instant proceeding, the Respondent raised, but
did not brief, as defenses to the complaint allegations, the asser-
tions made in the cited proceeding. Until the circuit court rules
on the appeal, the Board’s previous decision is the law of this
case and these defenses will not be discussed further.
The complaint alleges that since December 12, 1996, the
date of the election, the Respondent, without giving the Union
notice and opportunity to bargain, has made unilateral changes
in terms and conditions of employment by withholding pension
benefits improvements, by imposing new work rules, by with-
holding annual wage increases, by eliminating employer paid
flu shots, by changing health and dental coverage, and by
changing vacation benefits and work schedules. The General
Counsel contends that the purpose for unilaterally withholding
the wage increases, the pension improvements, and eliminating
the employer paid flu shots was to demonstrate to the employ-
ees that the Respondent would refuse to meet and bargain with
the Union, and that in the meantime the employees at the Ste-
vens Street plant could expect to have lesser wages and benefits
than they otherwise would have received had they not voted for
union representation. The imposition of the new work rule is
alleged to have been in retaliation for employees’ support of the
Union. Finally, the Respondent is alleged to have failed to
timely provide information which the Union requested concern-
ing bargaining unit employees and further, has failed and re-
fused to supply certain information requested by the Union.
This record reveals that before the election, the Respondent on
several occasions noted to employees at the Stevens Street plant
that certain benefits which were common at all three Keeler
Brass area plants were to be given to the employees at the other
two plants, but not to the Stevens Street employees because of
the pendency of the election. Following the election, the Re-
spondent has refused to meet and bargain with the Union and
has unilaterally implemented whatever changes in existing
policy and practice it desires at the Stevens Street plant. It has
demonstrated animus against the Union, and a flagrant disre-
gard for the labor laws of this country. Having reviewed the
evidence and the briefs, I believe the General Counsel has cor-
rectly set out the facts and law which govern the decision of
this case on brief and in the main I have adopted his brief.
B. Discussion of the Specific Complaint Allegations
1. Alleged failure to implement the pension improvements
at the Stevens Street plant
For many years the employees of the three plants of the
Keeler Brass Company were covered by the same pension plan.
The employees at all three plants were provided the same levels
of benefits and were subject to identical rules. Employees who
transferred from one plant to another were given credit under
this pension plan for their years of service at each of the plants.
Because a large number of the employees in the proposed unit
were approaching retirement age, one of the main issues in the
election campaign was the adequacy of the Respondent’s pen-
sion plan. The Respondent recognized that the adequacy of its
pension was the key issue in the union drive, and in its cam-
paign the Respondent advised Stevens Street plant employees
that they had the same pension as the other local plants. Also,
on the eve of the election, the Respondent reminded them of the
peril of selecting the Union, by announcing that pension im-
provements in the pension plan would be implemented at the
nonunion Godfrey Street and Kentwood plants on January 1,
1997, but not at the Stevens Street plant.
Thereafter, when the Union prevailed in the election, the Re-
spondent, for the first time, implemented benefit improvements
in the pension plan at the Kentwood and Godfrey Street plants
without also implementing them at the Stevens Street plant.
Furthermore, even though the Union advised the Respondent
that it had no objection to implementing these improvements at
the Stevens Street plant, it did not do so. Instead, the Respon-
dent placed the onus on the Union for not implementing the
improvements by asserting that the Union would assert that the
improvements were a bribe to employees to abandon support
for the Union.
At the time the union campaign started in September 1996,
Jeff Mitchell, then the vice president and general manager of
Keeler Die Cast, started to hold meetings with small groups of
employees. At these meetings, which were called “Coffee with
Jeff,” Mitchell would talk to employees and answer their ques-
tions on various issues. Minutes from these meetings were then
posted by the Respondent on bulletin boards in the plant. At the
October 30, 1996, Coffee with Jeff meeting, the first such meet-
ing held after the representation petition was filed, Mitchell told
the employees,

[t]he Union election is a serious matter. The outcome can af-
fect us forever . . . . Some want the Union in for a different
pension plan. There may be better plans around but we have
all seen much worse pension plans as well. Some automotive
plants have more. If we are forced into better benefits and
wages, we won’t make the money that we make now. KDC,
KB, FKI and other FKI companies all have the same pension
plan. Union issues will never be black and white. When you
have a policy you want changed and the union is voted in,
they can’t guarantee you’ll get what you want. If the Union
comes to KDC we would all start from scratch with no bene-
fits and we would re-negotiate everything. You may or may
not get more money or a better pension plan, etc. It is not a
sure thing.

KEELER DIE CAST 587
The minutes for the December 6, 1996 Coffee with Jeff meeting
indicate that an employee asked, “Why do we have such a
strong union drive now?” Mitchell responded, “I can only
guess. Maybe it is a desire for a different pension plan.”
On that same day, December 6, Mitchell issued a memoran-
dum to the Stevens Street plant employees advising them of the
election on December 12 and encouraging everyone to vote.
The memo went on to say:

We have been up front with everyone in this process. We
have had a number of questions about bonus and our pension
plan. As you know, as much as we might want to make
changes now, there are rules governing the election period
that affect our being able to do that. I can tell you that there
are pension improvements currently being finalized at God-
frey and Kentwood and anticipate that a decision will be an-
nounced there shortly.

Mitchell, who was called as an adverse witness, admitted
that he was advised by the corporate office that the Stevens
Street plant would not be getting the pension improvements that
were being implemented at the Godfrey Street and Kentwood
plants because “we were in the middle of a union drive or a
union election.”
Then shortly before the election on December 10, 1996, cop-
ies of a memorandum dated December 9 from Dan Robusto,
then president of FKI Automotive,3 addressed to the employees
at the Kentwood plant, appeared in the breakroom at the Ste-
vens Street plant and were posted on that plant’s bulletin
boards. The memorandum described the improvement in the
way normal and early retirement benefits were calculated effec-
tive January 1, 1997, for the Kentwood employees. At that time
Jeff Mitchell reported to Dan Robusto, and it is undisputed that
the employees at the Stevens Street plant knew that Robusto
was Mitchell’s boss.
The changes in the early retirement and normal retirement
benefits were implemented at the Godfrey Street and Kentwood
plants on January 1, 1997. Until the time of this change, the
pension plans for all three plants had been the same.
On April 11, Ken Bieber, international representative for the
UAW, sent Mitchell a letter which stated:

I have been informed by Keeler Die Cast employees that you
have told them that, as much as you want to, you can’t change
[improve] the pension formula for KDC employees as was
done for employees of other Keeler plants. It’s been reported
that your reason for doing so is your concern for maintaining
“laboratory conditions” during an employee union organizing
campaign.

This is to advise you that the UAW has no objection whatso-
ever with your increasing the pension formula or any other
wage increase for Keeler Die Cast employees, while we await
certification of the results of the employees’ union representa-
tion election. The Union will not file unfair labor practice
charges against the Company for granting any such increases
nor would we consider you having destroyed “conditions” as a
result of any such increases put into effect by Keeler Die Cast
Company.
On May 15, 1997, the morning that the Respondent received
the hearing officer’s report recommending that the objections to

3 At this period of time Keeler Brass Company operated the Kent-
wood plant under the assumed name of FKI Automotive and Dan Ro-
busto served as its president.
the election be overruled and that the Union be certified, Jeff
Mitchell conducted an employee meeting in which he described
the UAW as a dark cloud on the horizon. After the meeting,
Mitchell was approached by Tim Van Hill and a coworker.
During the course of this conversation, Mitchell was asked if
the Respondent was going to increase the pension benefits at
the Stevens Street plant. Mitchell replied, “This morning I said
that there’s a possibility of a new election of the union, which
isn’t as big a possibility now as it was at 7 this morning, or
[there is] the possibility of going into negotiations and we don’t
want to make any changes . . . . Either way it is dangerous for
us, we could give a $10 an hour raise and then we would have a
new election and the union would take exception, well, you
bribed them with a $10 an hour raise two weeks before the
letter.” Mitchell then referred to the letter he had received from
Ken Bieber, and said, “Ken Beiber’s letter said he’d be glad for
us to give a raise, glad for us to give retirement increases, but
you know if we’re going into negotiations those are things that
ought to be talked about in negotiations.” The Respondent has
yet to negotiate.
In this regard, the Respondent told employees on July 30, in
response to the question about upcoming changes in the Ste-
vens Street plant retirement program: “Not what your [sic]
looking for. Our hands are tied now. We can’t change anything
that could be viewed as a bribe, in view of a possible new elec-
tion. If there is not a new election, then the retirement issue can
be discussed in negotiations.”
The Respondent’s strategy from the beginning was to advise
employees that not only would they not be guaranteed a better
pension plan if they voted in the Union, but in the event they
did vote for union representation, they would lose pension
benefits that they would have otherwise received. Once the
Union was voted in, the Respondent’s strategy was to refuse to
bargain and to place the onus on the Union by claiming that it
was prevented from granting the pension increases at the Ste-
vens Street plant because if a second election was directed by
the Board, the Union could claim the pension increases were an
improper bribe or if the Respondent was ordered to bargain by
the Board, the employees would have to await the outcome of
bargaining. However, as described above, on October 30, 1996,
Jeff Mitchell had previously advised employees, “If the Union
comes to KDC we would all start from scratch with no benefits
and we would negotiate everything.” He also made a point of
telling employees at the Coffee with Jeff meetings prior to the
election that the local plants had the same pension plan. Fur-
ther, the timing of Jeff Mitchell’s December 6 memo in which
he advised the Stevens Street plant employees that, “as much as
we might want to make changes now, there are rules governing
the election period that affect our being able to do that. I can
tell you that there are pension improvements currently being
finalized at Godfrey and Kentwood and anticipate a decision
will be announced there shortly” establishes that Respondent
withheld the pension increases in an attempt to manipulate the
results of the election. This conclusion is buttressed by the an-
nouncement to the employees at the other two plants several
days prior to the election that the pension benefits would go
into effect there on January 1 and by the appearance in the
break room and on the bulletin boards in the Stevens Street
plant 2 days before the election of the memorandum from Dan
Robusto to the Kentwood (FKI Automotive) employees de-
scribing these pension improvements. If the Respondent truly
wanted to avoid the appearance of trying to influence the elec-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 588
tion, there was no reason why it could not have waited until
after the election to announce the pension improvements.
Thus, the evidence described above, clearly proves that the
purpose of not granting the employees at the Stevens Street
plant the pension increases that were implemented at the other
two Keeler Brass plants was to influence the outcome of the
election, to punish employees for their support of the Union,
and to demonstrate to them that they could expect to receive
lesser wages and benefits so long as the Union continued to
represent them. This is a violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of
the Act. See, e.g., Pennsylvania Gas & Water Co., 314 NLRB
791 (1994); and Autozone, Inc., 315 NLRB 115, 131–133
(1994). Furthermore, the employees of all three plants of the
Keeler Brass Company had for many years been covered by the
same pension and were eligible for identical pension benefits.
This employerwide pension was a condition of employment
and a mandatory subject of bargaining. By withholding the
pension improvements from the bargaining unit employees
without giving the Union notice and the opportunity to bargain,
the Respondent also violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
See, e.g., Fieldcrest Cannon, 318 NLRB 470, 471–472 (1995).
2. Failure to grant annual wage increases at the
Stevens Street plant

The Respondent offered no real defense to this conduct other
than to suggest that business was down somewhat in August
and September1997, the second quarter of their business year.
However, this apparently was due in large part to the loss of the
Honda job in August which had been anticipated for some time
and, notwithstanding the loss of this work, the Respondent
exceeded its planned profit for the first half of the 1997–1998
fiscal year (April through September) by $107,000. Moreover,
the Respondent was less profitable the previous year and still
awarded a 2-1/2-percent across-the-board wage increase to the
Stevens Street employees in October 1996. Indeed, the Re-
spondent lost a great deal of money during the first half of the
1996–1997 fiscal year and barely broke even for the entire
1996–1997 fiscal year. Despite the fact that he had told em-
ployees during 1997 that the wage increase was in the budget,
Jeff Mitchell asserted unconvincingly at the hearing that no
raise had been budgeted for the unit employees for the 1997–
1998 fiscal year. He admitted, however, that a raise had been
budgeted and issued for the salaried employees during that
period. Furthermore, the budget process for the 1997–1998
fiscal year began in or about November 1996, after the Union
had filed its representation petition and was finalized in January
1997, a month after the Union won the election. In any event,
Mitchell conceded that even if such a wage increase was not
budgeted it did not mean that such a wage increase could not be
granted.
From 1991 to October 1996 the employees at the Steven
Street plant received an across-the-board annual wage increase
averaging 2-1/2 percent. The only year during that period when
no across-the-board wage increase was granted was 1992, but
in 1991 the employees had been given a 5-percent across-the-
board wage increase. With the exception of 1991, when the
wage increase was issued in April, in all other years the wage
increase was issued in October. Because a substantial percent-
age of the Stevens Street plant employees had many years of
seniority and were at the top wage rate for their job classifica-
tions, the only raise they were eligible for was the annual
across-the-board increase. However, in October 1997, the
month following the Board’s certification of the Union as the
bargaining agent of the production and maintenance unit, the
Respondent failed to grant the employees an across-the-board
wage increase. This was the first annual wage increase they
were eligible for following the election. Several times during
1997, Jeff Mitchell told employees that their wage increase
was in the budget and indicated that it looked promising that
they would receive it. Nonetheless, the Respondent failed to
grant the wage increase even though the Respondent was ex-
ceeding profit goals. Yet the Respondent did budget and issue
wage increases to its salaried employees for the 1997–1998
fiscal year, and wage increases were granted at the nonunion
Godfrey Street and Kentwood plants during that period. When
employee Jerry Farrell approached Jeff Mitchell that December
and asked if the employees were going to receive the raise they
had coming in October, Mitchell candidly replied that due to
the union activity he could not give them a raise.
The Respondent denied the unit employees their across-the-
board wage increase just as it had denied them their pension
improvements in order to demonstrate to them that so long as
the Union was their collective-bargaining representative they
would receive lesser wages and benefits. This is a violation of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Fieldcrest Cannon, supra;
Pennsylvania Gas & Water Co., supra; and Autozone, Inc.,
supra.
In summary,

(a) given the evidence of antiunion animus described
above, in particular Mitchell’s statement that employees
would not be granted their wage increases due to their un-
ion activity;
(b) the fact that a 2-1/2-percent wage increase had
been granted in 1993–1996;
(c) that the salaried employees at the Stevens Street
plant were given wage increases during the 1997–1998
fiscal year;
(d) that the employees at the Godfrey Street and Kent-
wood plants were given a raise during this period;
(e) that the Respondent met its budgeted profit at Ste-
vens Street and failed to establish a credible business justi-
fication for not granting the wage increase,

It is beyond question that these employees were denied their
wage increase in order to discourage them from further support-
ing the Union. The Respondent therefore violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. Fieldcrest Cannon, supra; Pennsyl-
vania Gas & Water Co., supra; and Autozone, Inc., supra.
It is undisputed that the Respondent never gave the Union
notice or opportunity to bargain about its decision not to issue
an annual across-the-board increase at the Stevens Street plant.
Inasmuch as this annual wage increase had been given each
October from 1993 through 1996, it was an established condi-
tion of employment. By suspending the wage increase without
giving the Union notice and opportunity to bargain, the Re-
spondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. Fieldcrest
Cannon, supra; Chester County Hospital, 320 NLRB 604, 621
(1995).
3. The failure to provide paid influenza immunizations at the
Stevens Street plant
It is undisputed that from at least 1992 until 1997, the pro-
duction and maintenance employees at the Stevens Street plant
received employer paid influenza immunization shots each fall.
The employees at the Godfrey Street and the Kentwood plants
also received this same benefit. However, in the fall of 1997,
KEELER DIE CAST 589
the Respondent stopped providing employees at the Stevens
Street plant with this benefit. However, it continued providing
flu shots to its employees at the other two area plants. The evi-
dence of antiunion animus described earlier and the evidence of
disparate treatment of the unionized employees establishes a
prima facie case that this suspension of benefits was designed
to discourage support for the Union and, accordingly, violated
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
Furthermore, it is undisputed that the Respondent suspended
this benefit without giving the Union notice or opportunity to
bargain. This paid health benefit to employees is certainly a
mandatory subject of bargaining and, therefore, its unilateral
elimination was also a violation of Section 8(5) of the Act.
Casa San Miquel, Inc., 320 NLRB 535, 598 (1998).
4. Implementation of a new work rule
On May 20, 1997, less than a week after the hearing officer’s
report issued, the Respondent posted a new work rule. The
work rule, which was issued and posted without giving the
Union notice or opportunity to bargain stated, “If an employee
is caught rummaging through the trash, this offense is a major
infraction and is subject to immediate dismissal.” The work
rules of the Respondent, which are set forth in its employee
handbook, did not prohibit employees from taking materials
from the trash. Significantly, one of the objections filed by the
Respondent to the election alleged that employees had taken
memoranda from the trash of the Respondent which the Union
had used in its campaign. The hearing officer, in his May 14
report, concluded that this was not objectionable conduct. On
receiving the report, the Respondent then issued this new rule
prohibiting employees from taking materials from the trash and
making it a dischargeable offense.
The timing of the issuance of this rule and its subject matter
evidences that it was issued in retaliation for the employees’
support of the Union. The new rule issued 5 days after the May
15 meeting in which Jeff Mitchell referred to the UAW as a
dark cloud on the horizon, and 6 days after the hearing officer’s
report noted above. The issuance of the rule was in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. See, e.g., Garney Morris,
Inc., 313 NLRB 101, 120 (1993); and Sivalls, Inc., 307 NLRB
986, 991–992 (1992).
In any event, the work rule, which was clearly a mandatory
subject of bargaining, was issued unilaterally without notice to
the Union and without giving the Union opportunity to bargain
and therefore, its implementation was in violation of Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. See, e.g., Pepsi Cola Bottling Co.,
315 NLRB 882, 895 (1994).
5. Unilateral changes in work schedules
On September 2, 1997, the Respondent issued a notice stat-
ing that effective September 8, employees in department
360/361 would revert to an 8-hour shift. Since about 1991, the
employees in these Departments had worked 10-hour days,
Monday through Thursday, and had Fridays off. When they
worked Friday, it was paid as overtime. The September 8
memo changed this by returning the employees in these de-
partments to five 8-hour days. According to the memo, the
purpose of the schedule change was to meet customer require-
ments with a minimum of overtime. In fact, for the next several
weeks there was little, if any, overtime in these departments. At
the same time, the Respondent posted a memorandum for the
employees in departments 330/331 and 350/351, which effec-
tively changed their starting and quitting times. The Respon-
dent admittedly made these changes without giving the Union
notice or opportunity to bargain.
The changes in the work schedules in these departments and
the resulting reduction in overtime hours was a mandatory sub-
ject of bargaining, and by making these changes unilaterally
without giving the Union notice or opportunity to bargain, the
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. Hoff-
man Security, 315 NLRB 275, 281 (1994); Blue Circle Cement
Co., 319 NLRB 954 (1995); and Millard Processing Services,
310 NLRB 421, 424–425 (1993).
6. Unilateral changes in health and dental insurance
The Respondent admitted that on December 10, 1997, it
changed the health benefit coverage and the dental coverage
offered to employees, and these changes went into effect on
January 1, 1998. It did so without giving the Union notice and
opportunity to bargain. The changes were substantial in that
employees were no longer given the option of joining one of
several different health maintenance organizations, and instead
were offered a preferred provider plan. The plan offered to
employees had different medical benefit coverage, different co-
pays, different prescription coverage, and different dental bene-
fit coverage than had been offered for the previous year. It is
well settled that medical and dental insurance coverage is a
mandatory subject of bargaining and, as a result, these unilat-
eral changes were in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the
Act. Legal Aid Bureau, 319 NLRB 159, 167 (1995).
7. Unilateral changes in vacation policy
Effective January 1, 1998, the Respondent changed it vaca-
tion policy reducing the number of weeks that employees were
able to accrue from 5 to 4 weeks without giving the Union no-
tice or opportunity to bargain. Vacation benefits are also a
mandatory subject of bargaining and the unilateral reduction of
these benefits violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. Legal
Aid Bureau, supra at 168; and Casa San Miquel, supra at 598.
8. The refusal to provide information
In anticipation of future bargaining with the Respondent, the
Union, on September 18, 1997, requested by letter the follow-
ing information:

1. Names and addresses of employees.
2. Dates of hire, wage rates, hours of work.
3. Wage and salary plans applicable to bargaining
unit employees during the past three years.
4. Date and amount of wage increase for each em-
ployee during the past three years.
5. Job descriptions, job classifications.
6. All information covering the employee vacation
plan.
7. All information covering holiday pay.
8. All information covering pension plans.
9. All information covering employee insurance pro-
grams, including the name of the insurance carrier, the
holder of the master policy, the agent of record, the total
cost per employee for a single person, couple or family.
Also, the total contribution (both company and employee)
for all categories.
10. All information on any other fringe benefits, in-
cluding but not limited to, bonus plan or any other em-
ployee benefits.
11. Disciplinary policies and attendance policies.

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 590
The Respondent admittedly did not provide the requested in-
formation until February 11, 1998, and has never provided the
cost information with respect to the health insurance. The Re-
spondent’s 4-1/2-month delay in providing the Union with this
information concerning the terms and conditions of employ-
ment of unit employees, which is clearly necessary and relevant
to collective bargaining, and its failure to provide the cost in-
formation regarding health insurance, which is also relevant,
was in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act. Martin
Marrietta Energy Systems, 316 NLRB 868 (1995); and
Gloversville Embossing Systems, 314 NLRB 1258, 1265
(1994).
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. Since September 3, 1997, the Union has been the certified
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Respon-
dent’s employees in the following appropriate unit:

All full-time and regular part-time production and mainte-
nance employees including all leadmen, quality auditors and
material handling clerks employed by the Employer at its fa-
cility located at 236 Stevens Street, SW, Grand Rapids,
Michigan; but excluding all office clerical employees, quality
analysts, technical employees, professional employees, casual
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.

4. The Respondent has engaged in conduct in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act by:
(a) Since on or about January 1, 1997, withholding from unit
employees the increase in pension benefits which were given to
its non-union employees at its two other area plants.
(b) Since on or about October 1997, withholding an annual
across-the-board wage increase to unit employees.
(c) Since about November 1997, unilaterally discontinuing
its practice of providing free influenza immunizations to unit
employees.
(d) Since about May 20, 1997, promulgating a new work rule
subjecting unit employees to immediate dismissal for
“rummaging through the trash.”

5. The Respondent has engaged in conduct in violation of
Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by its conduct set out in para-
graph 4 above, and by:
(a) Since about September 2, 1997, unilaterally changing the
work schedules and availability of overtime work to unit em-
ployees in departments 330/331, 350/351, and 360/361.
(b) Since about December 10, 1997, unilaterally implement-
ing changes in the health and dental insurance coverage of its
unit employees.
(c) Since about December 10, 1997, unilaterally reducing the
maximum amount of vacation time available for unit employ-
ees from 5 weeks to 4 weeks.
(d) By delaying some 4-1/2 months in providing the Union
with information necessary and relevant to its role as exclusive
collective bargaining representative for the unit employees.
(e) By since September 18, 1997, failing and refusing to
supply the Union necessary and relevant information relating to
the cost of health and dental insurance.
6. The unfair labor practices committed by the Respondent
are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(6) and (7) 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.
The Respondent should be ordered to make whole any unit
employees who may have been denied the increased pension
benefit since January 1, 1997, overtime work since September
2, 1997, wage rate increases since October 1997, flu vaccina-
tions since about November 1997, and health and dental insur-
ance benefits and vacation benefits since about December 10,
1997, in accordance with the Board’s holding in F. W. Wool-
worth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest computed under
the Board’s formula as set out in New Horizons for the Re-
tarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). The Respondent should further
be ordered to rescind its work rule unilaterally promulgated on
May 20, 1997 making it a dischargeable offense for any em-
ployee caught “rummaging through the trash.” The Respondent
should be ordered to return to the status quo ante as it existed
prior to September 2, 1997, regarding the weekly work sched-
ules and overtime availability for unit employees, and make
available to unit employees the status quo ante as it existed
prior to December 10, 1997, regarding health and dental insur-
ance coverage and vacation benefits.
The Respondent should be order to, on request, bargain col-
lectively in good faith with the Union as the exclusive collec-
tive-bargaining representative of its employees in the unit.
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended4
ORDER
The Respondent, Keeler Brass Company, d/b/a Keeler Die
Cast, Grand Rapids, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Withholding from unit employees the increase in pension
benefits which were given to its nonunion employees at its two
other area plants on or about January 1, 1997.
(b) Withholding an annual across-the-board wage increase to
unit employees since October 1997.
(c) Unilaterally discontinuing its practice of providing free
influenza immunizations to unit employees.
(d) Promulgating new work rules subjecting unit employees
to discharge without giving the Union notice and the opportu-
nity to bargain over proposed changes in existing work rules.
(e) Unilaterally changing the work schedules and availability
of overtime work to unit employees.
(f) Unilaterally implementing changes in the health and den-
tal insurance coverage of its unit employees.
(g) Unilaterally reducing the maximum amount of vacation
time available for unit employees.
4 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur-
poses.
KEELER DIE CAST 591
(h) Delaying in providing the Union with information neces-
sary and relevant to its role as exclusive collective-bargaining
representative for the unit employees.
(i) Failing and refusing to supply the Union necessary and
relevant information relating to the cost of health and dental
insurance.
(j) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Make whole any unit employees who may have been de-
nied the increased pension benefit since January 1, 1997, over-
time work since September 2, 1997, wage rate increases since
October 1997, flu vaccinations since about November 1997,
and health and dental insurance benefits and vacation benefits
since about December 10, 1997, in the manner set forth in the
remedy section of this decision.
(b) Rescind its work rule unilaterally promulgated on May
20, 1997 making it a dischargeable offense for any employee
caught “rummaging through the trash.”
(c) Return to the status quo ante as it existed prior to Sep-
tember 2, 1997, regarding the weekly work schedules and over-
time availability for unit employees.
(d) Make available to unit employees the status quo ante as it
existed prior to December 10, 1997, regarding health and dental
insurance coverage and vacation benefits.
(e) On request, bargain collectively in good faith with the
Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
its employees in the unit.
(f) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, make available
to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay-
roll records, social security payment records, timecards, per-
sonnel records and reports, and all other records necessary to
analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Or-
der.
(g) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its
Stevens Street facility in Grand Rapids, Michigan, copies of the
attached notice marked “Appendix.”5 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after
being signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative,
shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places
including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the 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 Respon-
dent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the
notice to all current employees and former employees em-
ployed by the Respondent at any time since May 23, 1997.
(h) 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.

5 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.”
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government

The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the
National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide
by this notice.

Section 7 of the Act gives employees these rights.

To organize
To form, join, or assist any union
To bargain collectively through representatives of their
own choice
To act together for other mutual aid or protection
To choose not to engage in any of these protected con-
certed activities.

WE WILL NOT withhold from unit employees the increase
in pension benefits, which were given to our nonunion employ-
ees at our two other area plants on or about January 1, 1997.
WE WILL NOT continue to withhold an annual across-the-
board wage increase to unit employees due October 1997.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally discontinue our practice of pro-
viding free influenza immunizations to unit employees.
WE WILL NOT promulgate new work rules subjecting unit
employees to discharge without giving the Union notice and the
opportunity to bargain over proposed changes in existing work
rules.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally change the work schedules and
availability of overtime work to unit employees.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally implement changes in the
health and dental insurance coverage of our unit employees.
WE WILL NOT Unilaterally reduce the maximum amount
of vacation time available for unit employees.
WE WILL NOT delay in providing the Union with informa-
tion necessary and relevant to its role as exclusive collective-
bargaining representative for the unit employees.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to supply the Union necessary
and relevant information relating to the cost of health and den-
tal insurance.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with,
restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make whole any unit employees who may have
been denied the increased pension benefit since January 1,
1997, overtime work since September 2, 1997, wage rate in-
creases since October 1997, flu vaccinations since about No-
vember 1997, and health and dental insurance benefits and
vacation benefits since about December 10, 1997, with interest.
WE WILL rescind our work rule unilaterally promulgated on
May 20, 1997 making it a dischargeable offense for any em-
ployee caught “rummaging through the trash.”
WE WILL return to the status quo ante as it existed prior to
September 2, 1997, regarding the weekly work schedules and over-
time availability for unit employees.
WE WILL make available to unit employees the status quo ante
as it existed prior to December 10, 1997, regarding health and den-
tal insurance coverage and vacation benefits.
WE WILL, on request, bargain collectively in good faith with
the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
its employees in the unit described below:
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 592

All full-time and regular part-time production and
maintenance employees, including all leadmen, quality
auditors and material handling clerks employed by us at
our facility located at 236 Stevens Street, SW, Grand Rap-
ids, Michigan; but excluding all office clerical employees,
quality analysts, technical employees, professional em-
ployees, casual employees and supervisors as defined in
the Act.

KEELER BRASS COMPANY, D/B/A KEELER
DIE CAST