Larry Geweke Ford

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 12, 2005

344 N.L.R.B. 628 (N.L.R.B. 2005)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
344 NLRB No. 78
628
The Geweke Company d/b/a Larry Geweke Ford and
Machinists District Lodge 190, Automotive Ma-
chinists Local Lodge 2182, International Asso-
ciation of Machinists & Aerospace Workers,
AFL–CIO. Case 20–CA–31889
May 12, 2005
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND SCHAUMBER
On December 29, 2004, Administrative Law Judge
Gerald A. Wacknov issued the attached decision. The
Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief. The
General Counsel and the Charging Party filed cross-
exceptions, and the General Counsel filed a supporting
brief and an answering brief to the Respondent’s excep-
tions. The Respondent filed an answering brief to the
General Counsel’s cross-exceptions and a reply brief to
the General Counsel’s answering brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has considered
the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, find-
ings, and conclusions, and to adopt the judge’s recom-
mended Order as modified and set forth in full below.
We shall modify the judge’s recommended remedy
and Order and substitute a new notice to more closely
reflect the circumstances of this case and the violation
found.
The judge found, and we agree, that the Respondent
violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act by failing to bargain
with the Union regarding a change in health care plans
and the Respondent’s contribution to health care plans,
and by implementing a new health care plan without bar-
gaining with the Union.1 The judge recommended that

1 Member Schaumber wishes to make the following observations.
In distinguishing this case from the Board’s decision in Courier-
Journal, 342 NLRB 1093 (2004) (inadvertently referred to in the
judge’s decision as The Carrier-Journal), the judge said that “the Re-
spondent and newly certified Union had no past relationship whatso-
ever and, accordingly, no past practice of permitting the Respondent to
take unilateral action regarding health care or any other matter without
first bargaining to impasse with the Union.” The judge is correct that in
Courier-Journal, the health insurance changes at issue were imple-
mented pursuant to a well-established past practice to which the union
had acquiesced for 10 years, both during contract terms and during
contract hiatuses. However, prior acquiescence of the charging party
union is not invariably a requisite element in the past practice analysis.
As we pointed out in Courier-Journal, an employer’s “unilateral
change made pursuant to a longstanding practice is essentially a con-
tinuation of the status quo—not a violation of Section 8(a)(5).” 342
NLRB 1093, 1094 (citations omitted). In Member Schaumber’s view,
like then Member Hurtgen’s, this holds true regardless of whether the
established past practice predates selection of the union. See Eugene
Iovine, 328 NLRB 294, 295 (1999) (Member Hurtgen dissenting).
the Respondent bargain with the Union, upon request,
regarding health care plans and related issues. The judge
also recommended that the Respondent make whole unit
employees for any health care expenses they may have
incurred in excess of what they would have incurred had
the Respondent retained the existing Blue Cross plan.
The judge rejected the General Counsel’s request that the
Respondent be required to restore the status quo ante by
returning to the 2003 health care plan with its 2003 costs
and benefits. The judge stated that such a remedy was
neither necessary nor possible.
We find merit to the General Counsel’s exception in
this regard. The standard remedy for unilaterally imple-
mented changes in health insurance coverage is to order
the restoration of the status quo ante. See, e.g., Keeler
Die Cast, 327 NLRB 585, 590–591 (1999); Daily News
of Los Angeles, 315 NLRB 1236, 1241 (1994), enfd. 73
F.3d 406 (D.C. Cir. 1996), cert. denied 519 U.S. 1090
(1997); Millard Processing Services, 310 NLRB 421,
426 (1993).
We therefore find that the proper remedy requires that
the Respondent make available the health and medical
coverage benefits that were provided to unit employees
before the 2003 Blue Cross health care plan was unilat-
erally terminated. In addition, the Respondent shall re-
imburse unit employees for any expenses ensuing from
the unilateral change from the 2003 Blue Cross plan.
The reimbursement to employees shall be computed as
prescribed in Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682
(1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971), with interest
as prescribed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283

Citing Mid-Continent Concrete, 336 NLRB 258, 259 (2001), enfd.
308 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2002), the judge accurately states that “[h]ealth
insurance is a mandatory subject of bargaining, and the fact that the
Respondent has a past practice of providing the same health plan for all
its employees on a company-wide basis does not exempt it from its
bargaining obligation.” The distinction should be made, however, that
in Mid-Continent Concrete, the employer did not claim that it had an
established past practice of making regular annual changes in premium
amounts or other aspects of the health coverage of its employees. In-
stead, the employer articulated the status quo simply as the “right by
the unit employees to participate in the [employer’s]group insurance
plan. . . .” 336 NLRB at 268. Here, the Respondent does claim a past
practice of making periodic changes in health coverage for all its em-
ployees, including unit employees. However, as the judge properly
found, the Respondent’s changes, which were wholly discretionary,
variable (involving changes in carriers, deductibles, benefit levels and
premiums), and made on an ad hoc basis, did not constitute an estab-
lished past practice that became part of the status quo. Nor did the
Respondent here argue that it was faced with a discrete, recurring event
to which it was required to respond in an expeditious fashion, privileg-
ing implementation after notice and an opportunity to bargain. See
TXU, 343 NLRB No. 137 (2004). In fact, Respondent refused to bar-
gain at all, even after being repeatedly requested to do so by the Union.
Consequently, Respondent has established no lawful basis for its uni-
lateral action.
LARRY GEWEKE FORD 629
NLRB 1173 (1987). However, we will allow the Re-
spondent to litigate in compliance whether it would be
impossible or unduly or unfairly burdensome to restore
the 2003 Blue Cross plan.2
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge as
modified and set forth in full below and orders that the
Respondent, The Geweke Company d/b/a Larry Geweke
Ford, Yuba City, California, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Implementing a new health care plan without
bargaining with the Union.
(b) Refusing to bargain with the Union regarding
health care plans or the Respondent’s contributions to
health care plans.
(c) 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 actions necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Bargain with the Union, upon request, regarding
health care plans and related issues.
(b) On request of the Union, rescind the changes to the
health insurance benefits and premiums.
(c) On request of the Union, rescind the change in the
carrier providing health insurance and restore the insur-
ance furnished under the 2003 Blue Cross plan before the
change.
(d) Make employees whole for all increased costs to
them for health insurance benefits in excess of their costs
under the 2003 Blue Cross plan, including the cost of the
health insurance premiums and the expenses incurred as
a result of the change in insurance plans, with interest.
(e) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security payment records, time cards, personnel re-
cords and reports, and all other records, including an
electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic
form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay or
costs due under the terms of this Order.
(f) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility copies of the attached notice marked “Appen-
dix.”3 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the

2 In addition we shall modify the judge’s recommended Order in ac-
cordance with Ferguson Electric Co., 335 NLRB 142 (2001), and Excel
Container, 325 NLRB 17 (1997).
3 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of the United States court
of appeals, the wording in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the
Regional Director for Region 20, after being signed by
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted
for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent
to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by other material. In the event that, during the
pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone
out of business or closed the facilities involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at
its own expense, a copy of the attached notice to all cur-
rent employees and former employees employed by the
Respondent at any time since December 19, 2003.
(g) Within 21 days after service by the Regional Of-
fice, file with the Regional Director for Region 20 a
sworn certification of a responsible official on a form
provided by the Region attesting to the steps that 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
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we have
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 bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain regarding health care
plans or our contribution to health care plans with Ma-
chinists District Lodge 190, Automotive Machinists Lo-
cal 2182, International Association of Machinists &
Aerospace Workers, AFL–CIO (the Union) as the collec-
tive-bargaining representative of employees in the fol-
lowing unit:

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.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD630
All full-time and regular part-time automotive techni-
cians, lubrication technicians, shipping and receiving
employees, parts driver, body shop parts man, front
countermen and back countermen employed by us, ex-
cluding all other employees, business office clerical
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
WE WILL NOT implement a new health care plan with-
out bargaining 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 negotiate in good faith with the Union, upon
request, regarding health care plans and related issues of
our unit employees.
WE WILL, on request of the Union, rescind the
changes that we made unilaterally to health care benefits
and premiums.
WE WILL, on request of the Union, rescind the change
in the carrier providing health insurance and restore the
insurance furnished under the 2003 Blue Cross plan be-
fore the change.
WE WILL make employees whole for all increased
costs to them for health insurance benefits in excess of
their costs under the 2003 Blue Cross plan, including the
cost of the health insurance premiums and the expenses
incurred as a result of the change in the insurance plans,
with interest.
THE GEWEKE COMPANY D/B/A LARRY GEWEKE
FORD
Shelly Brenner, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Donald E. Cope, Esq. (Fine, Boggs, Cope & Perkins, LLP), of
Sacramento, California, for the Respondent.
Antonio Ruiz, Esq. (Weinbe, Roger & Rosenfeld), of Oakland,
California, for the Union.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GERALD A. WACKNOV, Administrative Law Judge. Pursuant
to notice a hearing in this matter was held before me in Yuba
City, California, on October 27, 2004. The charge was filed on
May 14, 2004, by Machinists District Lodge 190, Automotive
Machinists Local 2182, International Association of Machinists
& Aerospace Workers, AFL–CIO (the Union). On July 29,
2004, the Regional Director for Region 20 of the National La-
bor Relations Board (the Board) issued a complaint and notice
of hearing alleging a violation by The Geweke Company d/b/a
Larry Geweke Ford1 (Respondent) of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of
the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). The Respondent, in
its answers to the complaint, denies that it has violated the Act
as alleged.
The parties were afforded a full opportunity to be heard, to

1 The name of the Respondent was amended at the hearing.
call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
relevant evidence. Since the close of the hearing, briefs have
been received from counsel for the General Counsel (the Gen-
eral Counsel) and counsel for the Respondent.
On the entire record, and based on my observation of the
witnesses and consideration of the briefs submitted, I make the
following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent is a California corporation engaged in the
retail and nonretail sale of automobiles and related products
with its office and place of business located in Yuba City, Cali-
fornia. In the course and conduct of its business operations, the
Respondent annually receives gross revenues in excess of
$500,000, and annually purchases and receives at its California
facility goods valued in excess of $5000 which originated out-
side the State of California. It is admitted, and I find, that the
Respondent is, and at all material times has been, an employer
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6),
and (7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The parties stipulated, and I find, that the Union is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Issues
The principal issue in this proceeding is whether the Re-
spondent implemented a new health plan for its employees
without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain about the
implementation of the new health plan or the Respondent’s
monthly contribution to the employees’ premiums, in violation
of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
B. Facts
The Respondent operates a Ford dealership in Yuba City,
California. On August 11, 2003, the Union was certified as the
collective-bargaining representative of the Respondent’s auto-
motive technicians, shipping and receiving employees, parts
driver, body shop parts man, front countermen, and back coun-
termen. This collective-bargaining unit numbers some 24 em-
ployees.
The Respondent’s owner also owns and operates various
other enterprises located in California. The employee comple-
ment of all such businesses totals approximately 500 employ-
ees. For many years all of these employees have been provided
the opportunity to participate in the same group health plan
covering all of the Respondent’s business enterprises. The
Respondent contributes part of the monthly premium for each
participating employee, and the remainder of the premium, and
policy deductibles and copayments, is the employee’s responsi-
bility.2

2 The Respondent has not established that it had a past practice of
paying a fixed percentage of its employees’ monthly health care premi-
ums; rather, it appears that the Respondent determines the amount of its
contribution on an ad hoc basis at each annual renewal of the contract
and/or change of insurance carriers. Thus, there is no established status
LARRY GEWEKE FORD 631
The group health insurance contract is a 1-year contract and
expires on December 31 of each year. Premiums for each suc-
ceeding year are generally higher. Prior to December 31 of
each year the employees are given the option of renewing their
current coverage for the succeeding year or changing their cov-
erage by selecting various options under the plan. According to
the unrebutted testimony of Respondent’s comptroller, Dianne
Estes, the Respondent has changed group insurance carriers
five or more times during the past 9 years in order to provide
comparable coverage at the least possible cost both for itself
and its employees.
The Union and Respondent commenced bargaining negotia-
tions on September 11, 2003, and have met once or twice a
month since that date. The Respondent’s principal negotiator is
Donald Cope, an attorney, and the Union’s principal negotiator
is Mark Martin, a business representative.
On October 1, 2003, the Union submitted its first bargaining
package proposal. Regarding health insurance, the Union pro-
posed that the Respondent continue in effect its then current
health plan, and that the Respondent fund the entire cost of the
monthly insurance premiums for the participating employees.
Apparently, that continues to be the Union’s health insurance
bargaining position. In November 2003, the Respondent sub-
mitted its bargaining proposals and, with regard to health care,
proposed that the Respondent continue to provide its unit em-
ployees with the opportunity for health coverage under the
same terms and conditions as its nonunion employees.
At the bargaining session on December 12, 2003, Cope an-
nounced that on December 31, 2003, the current health plan
would expire, and that there would be changes effective Janu-
ary 1, 2004. Martin asked what the changes would be, and
requested that the Respondent bargain over any proposed
changes prior to implementation of any changes. Cope also
stated that the Respondent was looking into changing from its
Blue Cross plan to a Great West insurance plan as the proposed
18 per cent premium increase in its current Blue Cross plan was
“outrageous.” During and subsequent to that meeting, the Un-
ion requested and was provided with information regarding
both plans.
On December 19, 2003, the Respondent distributed to its
employees a two-page document. The first page is a notifica-
tion to all employees, both union and nonunion, requiring them
to attend one of four scheduled health insurance benefits meet-
ings that day. The second page of the document is entitled
“Geweke Companies Rate/Plan Comparison, Plan Year 2003 vs
Plan Year 2004.” It compares the monthly premium rates un-
der the Blue Cross plan with the monthly premium rates under
the Great West plan, and states, inter alia, that:
The current medical plans will not be offered as of 1/1/2004.
We have enrolled all medical plans under 1 insurance carrier,
Great West. Great West offers a variety of plans to accom-
modate the individual needs of each associate and their fami-
lies, at a much lower cost to the associate. We are anticipat-
ing this to be beneficial to all associates in the entire Geweke

quo in this regard. See Post-Tribune Co., 337 NLRB 1279, 1280
(2002); Maple Grove Health Center, 330 NLRB 775, 780–781 (2000).
Auto & RV Group. We are staying with Guardian Dental,
and there are not changes in the benefits offered and no in-
crease in the cost. There is no change to the Vision Plan, nor
is there a rate increase. [Original emphasis.]
At a bargaining meeting on that day, December 19, 2003, Un-
ion Business Representative Martin objected to the Respon-
dent’s implementation of the new health insurance plan without
affording the Union the opportunity to bargain over both the
decision and effects of the change on the unit employees. Mar-
tin advised the Respondent that during negotiations the Re-
spondent had an obligation to maintain the status quo with re-
gard to employee benefits; namely, to maintain the same health
care plan at the same current rates for the unit employees until
health care had been negotiated. Cope replied, according to
Martin, that “as long as the unit employees are being offered
the same thing as the nonunit employees, that there’s no change
in status quo.” Cope said, according to Martin, that the Respon-
dent did not have to bargain over health care changes “because
it’s not a violation of status quo, and [Martin] can take it to the
Board.” Cope also advised that as of January 1, 2004, the Re-
spondent would be increasing its contribution to the monthly
premium for each enrolled employee from $175 to $200 per
month.
By letter dated December 22, 2003, Martin reiterated his ob-
jections to the Respondent’s implementation of the new plan,
and by letter dated, December 23, 2003, Cope replied, inter
alia, as follows:
As I stated to you at our bargaining session on December
19th, the status quo is that the unit members are provided with
the same health insurance coverage at the same cost as all
other Larry Geweke Ford employees. As I explained to you
Geweke’s health coverage expires on December 31. Geweke
was forced to explore other coverage options. Geweke has
found alternative coverage at a comparable cost. Geweke ac-
tually increased its contribution to keep the employees’ con-
tribution almost the same.
As I explained to you, this was not a voluntary or discretion-
ary act on the part of Geweke. It was forced to find other
coverage to maintain the status quo, not to change it.
Geweke has provided you with information concerning the
new coverage and we are more than willing to negotiate any
affects that the new coverage might have on the unit employ-
ees. However, Geweke has maintained the status quo of pro-
viding coverage to the unit employees.
Michael Hansen has been a licensed insurance agent in the
State of California since 1989, and has worked with the Re-
spondent as its benefits insurance broker since 1994. Hansen
testified that although there are always differences in compari-
son between health insurance plans, the Blue Cross and the
Great West plan are similar and are “considered comparable
benefit plans.”
The Respondent has made it clear that it has been willing to
negotiate with the Union regarding the effects of the Great
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD632
West plan upon the unit employees. It has asked the Union to
bring to the Respondent’s attention any specific instances of
additional expenses actually incurred by employees or their
family members under the Great West plan that would not have
been incurred under the Blue Cross plan. To date, the Union
has not brought any such instances to the Respondent’s atten-
tion. Martin testified that because of lack of cooperation from
the bargaining unit, and the failure of any employees to come
forward, the Union had no information regarding how the unit
employees were personally impacted.
While the General Counsel has pointed out differences in the
two plans, and while certain premiums, copays, or deductibles
may be higher or lower depending on the employees’ selection
of benefits, there is no credible record evidence that the change
in plans from Blue Cross to Great West has caused any em-
ployee to pay more for health insurance on an annual overall or
net basis. Nor is there any evidence that any employee has
been precluded from utilizing the same physicians and hospitals
that were available under the Blue Cross plan.
C. Analysis and Conclusions
It is clear that the Respondent, without inviting or permitting
any input from the collective-bargaining representative of its
unit employees, simply refused to negotiate with the Union
regarding the implementation of a new health insurance plan, a
mandatory subject of bargaining. Thus the Respondent unilat-
erally selected and implemented a new insurance plan for its
unit employees, and unilaterally increased its monthly contribu-
tion per employee.
The record evidence shows that health insurance for the Re-
spondent’s employees is an employee benefit that is revisited
annually on a companywide basis. The Respondent takes the
position that because it treats all of its union and nonunion em-
ployees the same, it is never required to bargain with the Union
over health insurance benefits. In support of this position the
Respondent primarily relies on Carrier-Journal, 342 NLRB
1093 (2004). In Carrier-Journal, slip op. at 2, the Board states
as follows:
The [health care] changes were implemented pursuant to a
well-established past practice. For some 10 years, the Re-
spondent had regularly made unilateral changes in the costs
and benefits of the employees’ health care program, both un-
der the parties’ successive contracts and during hiatus periods
between contracts. In each instance, the Union did not oppose
the Respondent’s changes. Like the previous changes, the
Respondent’s January 2002 changes for unit employees were
identical to those for unrepresented employees, consistent
with the “same benefits as” clause of the parties’ successive
contracts.
Thus, unlike the situation in the instant case, the contract be-
tween the union and employer in Carrier-Journal contained
contract terms providing that the employer could unilaterally
change health insurance benefits for unit employees so long as
such changes were identical to those for the employer’s unrep-
resented employees; and this particular contract provision had
been implemented by the employer, without objection from the
union, for some 10 years. In the instant case, however, the
Respondent and newly certified Union had no past relationship
whatsoever and, accordingly, no past practice of permitting the
Respondent to take unilateral action regarding health care or
any other matter without first bargaining to impasse with the
Union.
Health insurance is a mandatory subject of bargaining, and
the fact that the Respondent has a past practice of providing the
same health plan for all its employees on a companywide basis
does not exempt it from its bargaining obligation. Mid-
Continent Concrete, 336 NLRB 258, 259 (2001), enfd. 308
F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2002).
Had the Respondent agreed to bargain with the Union over
the matter of health care, it is quite possible that the parties
could have reached some mutual accommodation. Clearly
there were critical time constraints due to the unavoidable in-
crease in Blue Cross premiums that were to become effective
on January 1, 2004. Had the parties reached an impasse after
expedited and good-faith negotiations, the Respondent would
have been privileged to make timely unilateral changes over the
Union’s objection. However the new Great West plan, includ-
ing the Respondent’s increased monthly contributions, was
presented as a fait accompli. Thus, with regard to health care
issues, the Union was simply ignored and disregarded as the
employees’ collective-bargaining representative. Moreover, it
appears that the Respondent continues to adhere to this unten-
able position, and will continue to refuse to bargain with the
Union over health care in the future. Accordingly, I find that
the Respondent has violated and is continuing to violate Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act as alleged.
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. The Respondent has violated and is violating Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act as alleged in the complaint.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has violated and is violat-
ing Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by unilaterally changing
and implementing a new health care plan for its unit employees
without bargaining with the Union regarding such changes and
related matters, I recommend that it be required to cease and
desist therefrom and from in any other like or related manner
interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the
exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act. I further
recommend that the unit employees be made whole for any
LARRY GEWEKE FORD 633
health care expenses they incurred in excess of what they
would have incurred had the Respondent retained the Blue
Cross plan with its 18-percent January 1, 2004 increase in pre-
miums. The reimbursement to employees shall be computed as
prescribed in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (1950), plus
interest as computed in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283
NLRB 1173 (1987).3

3 The General Counsel suggests that to remedy the violation the Un-
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]

ion should be given the option of requiring the Respondent to restore
the status quo by returning to the 2003 Blue Shield health care plan
with its 2003 costs and benefits. This suggested remedy appears to be
neither necessary nor possible, and the remedy provided herein seems
appropriate under the circumstances.