Lenawee Stamping Corporation d/b/a Kirchhoff Van-Rob

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 14, 2017

365 NLRB No. 97 (N.L.R.B. 2017)

365 NLRB No. 97
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Lenawee Stamping Corporation d/b/a Kirchhoff Van-
Rob1 and Local 3000, International Union, Unit-
ed Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Im-
plement Workers of America (UAW), AFL–
CIO. Cases 07–CA–168498 and 07–CA–172535
June 14, 2017
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MISCIMARRA AND MEMBERS PEARCE
AND MCFERRAN
On December 22, 2016, Administrative Law Judge
Mark Carissimi issued the attached decision. The Re-
spondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the
General Counsel filed an 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,2 and conclusions and to adopt the recommended
Order as modified and set forth in full below.3

1 We amend the caption to correct the spelling of Lenawee.
2 We agree with the judge that the Respondent did not have a
“sound arguable basis” for making a midterm contract modification by
granting raises to unit employees without the Union’s consent, and that
under this standard the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (d) of the
Act when it changed contractual wage rates. See Bath Iron Works
Corp., 345 NLRB 499, 501–502 (2005), affd. sub nom. Bath Marine
Draftsmen Assn. v. NLRB, 475 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2007).
Chairman Miscimarra finds that the “sound arguable basis” standard,
rather than the “clear and unmistakable” waiver standard, is the correct
standard to apply in midterm contract modification cases. Accordingly,
he does not rely on the judge’s “clear and unmistakable” waiver discus-
sion regarding the Respondent’s management-rights clause.
Member Pearce does not agree with the “sound arguable basis”
standard articulated in Bath Iron Works Corp., supra, but agrees that
under this standard the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (d) of the
Act when it modified the collective-bargaining agreement’s wage pro-
vision by granting wage increases to unit employees without the Un-
ion’s consent.
Member McFerran expresses no opinion whether Bath Iron Works
was correctly decided, but she agrees that the Respondent’s wage in-
creases violated the Act under the “sound arguable basis” standard
insofar as it applies. To the extent the Respondent argues that the man-
agement-rights clause permitted the wage increases at issue here,
Member McFerran believes that only the heightened “clear and unmis-
takable” waiver standard applies, and she would find that the wage
increases violated the Act under this standard as well.
The Respondent’s sole argument in excepting to the judge’s finding
that the Respondent violated the Act by unilaterally implementing
referral and sign-on bonuses is that the bonuses do not constitute wages
and, therefore, are not mandatory subjects of bargaining. We reject this
argument for the reasons stated by the judge.
Chairman Miscimarra notes that the types of unilateral changes im-
plemented by the Respondent closely resemble the unlawful unilateral
employer changes implemented in the Supreme Court decision NLRB v.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that Re-
spondent, Lenawee Stamping Corporation d/b/a Kirch-
hoff Van-Rob, Tecumseh, Michigan, its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing to continue in effect the terms and condi-
tions of its 2013–2018 collective-bargaining agreement
with Local 3000, International Union, United Automo-
bile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW), AFL–CIO (the Union) by granting
wage increases to skilled and semiskilled unit employees
without the Union’s consent.
(b) Unilaterally changing terms and conditions of em-
ployment of its unit employees by granting referral and
sign-on bonuses to unit employees without giving notice
and an opportunity to bargain to the Union.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Upon request of the Union, rescind the wage in-
creases given to skilled unit employees on November 30,
2015, and to semiskilled unit employees on March 22
and April 24, 2016.
(b) Continue in effect all the terms and conditions of
employment contained in its 2013–2018 collective-
bargaining agreement with the Union.
(c) Upon request of the Union, rescind the referral and
sign-on bonuses granted to unit employees beginning on
March 22, 2016.
(d) Before implementing any changes in wages, hours,
or other terms and conditions of employment of unit em-
ployees, notify and, on request, bargain with the Union
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
employees in the following bargaining unit:
All regular full-time production and maintenance em-
ployees employed by the Respondent at its Tecumseh
facility; but excluding office clerical employees, group
leaders, temporary workers, guards and supervisors as
defined in the National Labor Relations Act, and all
other employees.

Katz, 369 U.S. 736 (1962), which established that unilateral changes in
mandatory bargaining subjects constitute violations of Sec. 8(a)(5) of
Act. Katz dealt with unilateral wage increases, merit increases, and/or
bonuses—the same types of unilateral changes the Respondent made
here. Id. at 744–746.
3 We have modified the judge's recommended Order to conform to
the Board's standard remedial language, and we shall substitute a new
notice to conform to the Order as modified.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its
facility in Tecumseh, Michigan, copies of the attached
notice marked “Appendix.”4 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7,
after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent and main-
tained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper
notices, the notices shall be distributed electronically,
such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet
site, and/or other electronic means, if the Respondent
customarily communicates with its employees by such
means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond-
ent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material. If the Respondent has
gone out of business or closed the facility involved in
these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and
mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all cur-
rent employees and former employees employed by the
Respondent at any time since November 30, 2015.
Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with
the Regional Director for Region 7 a sworn certification
of a responsible official on a form provided by the Re-
gion attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken
to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. June 14, 2017
______________________________________
Philip A. Miscimarra, Chairman
______________________________________
Mark Gaston Pearce, Member
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

4 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 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 fail to continue in effect the terms and
conditions of our 2013–2018 collective-bargaining
agreement with Local 3000, International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW), AFL–CIO (the Union) by
granting wage increases to skilled and semiskilled unit
employees without the Union’s consent.
WE WILL NOT unilaterally change terms and conditions
of employment of our unit employees by granting refer-
ral and sign-on bonuses to unit employees without giving
notice and an opportunity to bargain to the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
WE WILL, upon request of the Union, rescind the wage
increases given to skilled unit employees on November
30, 2015, and to semiskilled unit employees on March 22
and April 24, 2016.
WE WILL continue in effect all the terms and conditions
of employment contained in our 2013–2018 collective-
bargaining agreement with the Union.
WE WILL, upon request of the Union, rescind the refer-
ral and sign-on bonuses granted to unit employees begin-
ning on March 22, 2016.
WE WILL, before implementing any changes in wages,
hours, or other terms and conditions of employment of
unit employees, notify and, on request, bargain with the
Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of employees in the following bargaining unit:
All regular full-time production and maintenance em-
ployees employed by us at our Tecumseh facility; but
excluding office clerical employees, group leaders,
temporary workers, guards and supervisors as defined
LENAWEE STAMPING CORPORATION D/B/A KIRCHHOFF VAN-ROB 3
in the National Labor Relations Act, and all other em-
ployees.
LENAWEE STAMPING CORPORATION
D/B/A KIRCHHOFF VAN-ROB
The Board’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/07-CA-168498 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision
from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations
Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or
by calling (202) 273-1940.
Rana Roumayah, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Michael Parente and Todd Dawson, Esqs., for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
MARK CARISSIMI, Administrative Law Judge. This case was
tried in Detroit, Michigan, on September 26, 2016. Local 3000,
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL–CIO
(the Union), filed the charge in Case 07–CA–168498 on Janu-
ary 25, 2016, and the charge in Case 07–CA–172535 on March
23, 2016, and the General Counsel issued an order consolidat-
ing cases, consolidated complaint and notice of hearing (the
complaint) on June 30, 2016.
The complaint alleges that the Respondent, about November
30, 2015, unilaterally granted wage increases to skilled em-
ployees in the bargaining unit and, about March 28, 2016, uni-
laterally granted wage increases to semiskilled employees in
the bargaining unit, without the Union’s consent, in violation of
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 8(d) of the Act.
The complaint also alleges that since about March 28, 2016,
the Respondent has been unilaterally awarding sign-on bonus-
es and new hire referral bonuses to eligible bargaining unit
employees in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
On the entire record, including my observation of the de-
meanor of the witnesses,1 and after considering the briefs filed

1 In making my findings regarding the credibility of witnesses, I
have considered their demeanor, the content of the testimony, and the
inherent probabilities based on the record as a whole. In certain in-
stances, I credited some, but not all, of what a witness said. I note, in
this regard, that “nothing is more common in all kinds of judicial deci-
sions to believe some and not all” of the testimony of a witness. Jerry
Ryce Builders, 352 NLRB 1262 fn. 2 (2008), citing NLRB v. Universal
by the General Counsel and the Respondent, I make the follow-
ing
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
The Respondent, a corporation, with an office and place of
business in Tecumseh, Michigan, is engaged in the stamping,
assembly, and non-retail sale of automotive support systems. In
conducting its operations during the 12-month period ending
December 31, 2015, the Respondent sold and shipped from its
Tecumseh, Michigan facility goods valued in excess of $50,000
directly to points outside the State of Michigan. The Respond-
ent admits, and I find, that it is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the
Act and that the Union is a labor organization within the mean-
ing of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Background
The Respondent is an automotive stamping and welding fa-
cility which supplies parts to manufacturers such as General
Motors, Chrysler, Ford, Toyota, and BMW. The Respondent
and the Union have had a collective-bargaining relationship
since 1993. The most recent contract between the parties covers
the period from April 5, 2013, until April 5, 2018 (GC Exh. 2).
The bargaining unit represented by the Union is comprised of:
All regular full-time production and maintenance employees
employed by the Respondent at its Tecumseh, Michigan facil-
ity; but excluding office clerical employees, group leaders,
temporary workers, guards and supervisors as defined in the
National Labor Relations Act, and all other employees.
The bargaining unit is composed of skilled trade employees
(skilled employees) and semiskilled trade employees (semi-
skilled employees). According to the credited testimony of
Joseph Grisham, the unit chairperson of Local 3000 UAW (the
Local Union), at the time of the hearing on September 26,
2016, there were approximately 610 employees in the bargain-
ing unit represented by the Union. At that time, the bargaining
unit contained 50 to 55 skilled trade employees who are com-
posed of die repairman and maintenance employees. There
were approximately 550 employees in the semiskilled employ-
ee classification, who are responsible for the actual production
work at the plant. In November 2015, the total number of bar-
gaining unit employees was approximately 425. According to
the terms of the current collective-bargaining agreement, the
starting wage rate for skilled employees is $22.19 per hour.
According to Grisham, after 3 months skilled employees pro-
gressed to a wage level of $24.10 an hour. Pursuant to the col-

Camera Corp., 179 F.2d 749, 754 (2d Cir. 1950), revd. on other
grounds, 340 U.S. 474 (1951). See also J. Shaw Associates, LLC, 349
NLRB 939, 939–940 (2007). In addition, I have carefully considered all
the testimony in contradiction to my factual findings and have discred-
ited such testimony.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
lective-bargaining agreement, the starting wage rate for semi-
skilled employees is $10 an hour. The contract further provides
that semiskilled employees have the following wage progres-
sion: 12 months-$10.40; 24 months-$10.90; 36 months-$12;
and 48 months-$14.35 (GC Exh. 2, appendix A, p. 68).
The Wage Increase for Skilled Employees
According to the credited and uncontradicted testimony of
Melissa Tarsha, the Respondent’s human resources manager,
the Respondent’s facility operates approximately 300 dies,
which are used to make various automotive parts. Die repair-
men have a critical role in the Respondent’s operation as they
maintain the existing dies and also tests new dies that come into
the plant. The Respondent attempts to comply with the industry
standard of having a die repairman for every 10 dies, so that it
needs to have approximately 30 die repairmen in order to oper-
ate at maximum efficiency. Tarsha testified that from the latter
part of 2014 into 2015 the Respondent experienced a rapid
decline of the die repairmen that it employed because they vol-
untarily left employment with the Respondent. The Respondent
reached its lowest point in July 2015 when only five die re-
pairman were employed.
According to Tarsha, the effect of the shortage of die repair-
man caused the remaining die repairmen to have to work exces-
sive overtime. In addition, the Respondent was not able to
maintain appropriate support for production or engage in pre-
ventative maintenance. Because of the inability to maintain
production levels, the Respondent had to outsource approxi-
mately $1.2 to $1.3 million of work a month. In an attempt to
alleviate situation, the Respondent also hired contract die mak-
ers at a cost of approximately $40-$50 an hour per individual.
Because of the production problems that the Respondent expe-
rienced, the Respondent’s customers became concerned that the
Respondent would not be able to meet their requirements and
became more involved in the Respondent’s business operations.
One customer had a representative in the plant to monitor the
Respondent’s production process regarding the parts supplied
to it. Other customers required daily or weekly calls from Tar-
sha reporting on the manpower situation and what the Re-
spondent was doing to alleviate it.
During 2015, the Respondent contacted multiple recruiters to
assist it in hiring die repairmen. The Respondent received re-
ports from its recruiters reporting that the primary factors hin-
dering its recruitment of new die repairmen was that the Re-
spondent’s wages were below the market level and that the
market for die repairmen was especially tight.
In late November 2015, Grisham and Steve Gonzalez, the lo-
cal union president, met with John Donahoe, the Respondent’s
plant manager, in Donohue’s office. According to Grisham,
Donahoe informed the union representatives that the Respond-
ent intended to increase the starting wage rate for skilled em-
ployees to $30 an hour. The union representatives informed
Donahoe that the Respondent could not increase the wages to
$30 an hour without bargaining with the Union. Donahoe pre-
sented no documentation to the Union at the meeting regarding
the factors supporting the Respondent’s intention to raise the
starting wage rate for skilled employees and the union repre-
sentatives did not consent to the increase.2
According to the uncontradicted testimony of Grisham, on
November 30, 2015, the Respondent increased the wage rate of
the approximately 25 skilled employees who were currently
working for the Respondent to $30 an hour.
On November 30, 2015, Mike Thornton, a representative of
UAW Region IA (the International Union), sent an email to
Tarsha indicating that he had received a phone call from Ed
Ward, the local union’s acting local chairman, informing him
that the Respondent had decided to increase the base wage rate
of all skilled employees to $30 an hour. Thornton’s email fur-
ther indicated, inter alia, that if this information was accurate,
he was putting the Respondent on notice that its action was a
violation of the collective-bargaining agreement.
After the change in wages for the skilled employees had
been implemented, the Union and the Respondent had a series
of meetings in December 2015 and January 2016 regarding,
inter alia, the wage increase that had been granted to the skilled
employees. The first meeting occurred on December 2, 2015.3
Grisham and Gonzalez attended on behalf of the Union, while
Donahoe and Tarsha represented the Respondent. At this meet-
ing Donahoe reiterated that the Respondent had to pay $30 an
hour in order to attract more skilled employees into the plant.
The parties did not reach an agreement regarding the wage
increase for skilled employees at this meeting.
While there is not much detail regarding these meetings in
the record, Grisham’s credited testimony establishes that the
Union was attempting to gain an increase in compensation for
other members of the bargaining unit, who had not been subject
to the increase in wages instituted by the Respondent for the
skilled employees. At the meeting held on December 2, 2015,
the Respondent made a proposal to the Union regarding pro-
posed changes to the existing collective-bargaining agreement,
including article 17, the provision regarding skilled trades em-
ployees. On December 10, 2015, the Union presented a coun-
terproposal to the Respondent regarding its requested changes
to the existing collective-bargaining agreement. On December
17, the parties met again and the Respondent made a new pro-
posal seeking to modify the existing collective-bargaining
agreement (GC Exh. 13). There was no agreement reached at

2 Donahoe did not testify at the hearing and thus Grisham’s testimo-
ny regarding this meeting is uncontradicted and I credit it. While Gri-
sham’s testimony about the meeting was brief, it was clear and concise
with respect to its substance. Tarsha was not present for this meeting.
Tarsha testified in a general fashion that the Respondent met with the
Union before increasing the wages of skilled employees. According to
Tarsha, the Union did not support the Respondent's position in raising
the wages for skilled trade employees and did not offer any alternate
solutions.
3 There are minor discrepancies regarding the dates that the meet-
ings were held by the parties in December 2015 and January 2016
between Grisham’s testimony and a letter the Union sent to employees
on January 11, 2016 (GC Exh. 6), advising them of the status of discus-
sions that were being held between the Respondent and the Union. I
have used the dates set forth in the letter to employees regarding these
meetings as it was signed by Grisham and other members of the bar-
gaining committee and was prepared shortly after the meetings were
held. Under these circumstances I believe the Union's January 11 letter
more accurately sets forth the dates of these meetings.
LENAWEE STAMPING CORPORATION D/B/A KIRCHHOFF VAN-ROB 5
this meeting regarding modifications to the collective-
bargaining agreement. The parties also met on January 6, 2016,
but reached no agreement to modify the collective-bargaining
agreement.
On January 6, 2016, the Respondent issued a memo to all
employees (GC Exh. 5) indicating:
The Union and Company have agreed to sit down to discuss
wages and areas of improvements under the current Collec-
tive Bargaining Agreement. Changes to semi-skilled wages,
including those of temporary employees, are not finalized.
Further communications will be provided as we continue to
have a dialogue. Thank you for your time and patience.
As noted above, on January 11, 2016, the Union sent a letter
to all unit employees regarding the discussions between the
parties that had taken place since the Respondent had unilater-
ally increased the wage rate of skilled employees at the end of
November 2015. In this letter, Union indicated that the discus-
sions had been generated because of the increase in wages to
skilled employees implemented by the Respondent. The Un-
ion’s letter also indicated it was not opposed to giving the
skilled employees a wage increase, but that its position was that
all bargaining unit employees should be compensated “for their
hard work and efforts.” (GC Exh. 6.)
On January 12, 2016, Grisham sent an email to Donahoe re-
questing that the Respondent indicate in writing that it had
increased the wages of skilled trade employees by $5.90 an
hour, as the Union had not received official notice of this wage
adjustment (GC Exh. 7). On January 15, 2016, Tarsha replied
in an email indicating “Skilled Trades employees are compen-
sated at $30 an hour.” (GC Exh. 8.)
The parties met again on January 14, 19, 25, and in early
February 2016, to discuss possible modifications to the contract
but did not reach an agreement.
According to Tarsha, as a result of the wage increase to
skilled trade employees, at the time of the hearing on Septem-
ber 26, 2016, the Respondent had 15 die repairmen and had
been able to bring back into the facility approximately 55 per-
cent of the work it had previously outsourced. In addition, over-
time had been reduced and the Respondent’s customers no
longer required daily or weekly updates regarding the Re-
spondent’s manpower situation.
The Wage Increase for Semiskilled Employees and the Imple-
mentation of Sign-On and New-Hire Referral Bonuses
Tarsha testified that during the latter part of 2015 and the
first part of 2016, the Respondent also had difficulty in main-
taining the requisite number of semiskilled employees. Accord-
ing to Tarsha the Respondent needs 712 semiskilled employees
to effectively operate the facility.4 Tarsha testified that during
the early part of 2016 the number of semiskilled employees at
the facility substantially declined. The Respondent received

4 According to Tarsha, this figure is composed of production em-
ployees, “hi-lo-drivers,” quality employees, and team leaders. It also
includes both temporary and full-time employees. Thus, it appears that
this figure includes supervisors and temporary employees who are not
included in the bargaining unit.
feedback from departing employees, a staffing agency that
supplies it temporary employees, and “Michigan works!” a
state job program, indicating that the reason for the decline was
that the Respondent’s wage scale was not competitive in the
area. The information that the Respondent received reflected
that the starting wage rate for other manufacturing facilities in
the area ranged from $11.25 to $12 an hour. As noted above,
the Respondent’s starting wage rate for semiskilled employees
was $10 an hour. In early 2016, the Respondent reached the
level where it was approximately 100 employees short of its
optimal level of employment of semiskilled trade employee.
According to Tarsha, the result of the staffing shortage was
excessive overtime, increased absenteeism, and the loss of cus-
tomer confidence because of production problems.
As discussed above, from early December 2015 through Feb-
ruary 2016, the parties had meetings regarding the possibility of
reaching modifications to the existing contract, including the
wages of skilled employees and semiskilled employees, but
were unable to reach an agreement.
The Respondent periodically conducts “state of the business”
meetings with employees to inform them of important issues.
According to Grisham’s credited and uncontradicted testimony,
he attended a “state of the business meeting” conducted by
Donahoe on March 22, 2016. At this meeting, Donahoe told the
assembled unit employees that the Respondent was going to
increase the wage rate for newly hired semiskilled employees
from $10 to $10.75 an hour. Donahoe also told employees that
if any current employee referred a new hire to work at the plant,
the current employee would receive a $100 referral bonus. Fi-
nally, Donahoe stated that any new employee who completed
the probationary period would receive a $1000 sign-on bonus.
Grisham testified that the Union had not consented to the
$10.75 per hour wage rate for newly hired semiskilled trade
employees. Grisham further testified the Respondent had never
discussed the $100 referral bonus nor the $1000 sign-on bonus
with the Union prior to the meeting that Donahoe conducted
with unit employees on March 22. Grisham learned of these
changes in compensation at the same time as the rest of the
bargaining unit. On March 22, the Respondent also posted fly-
ers in the facility regarding the referral bonus and the sign-on
bonus (GC Exhs. 9 and 10). The new wage rate for semiskilled
employees and the implementation of the referral and sign-on
bonuses became effective on March 22.
Grisham testified that shortly after the meeting Donahoe
conducted on March 22, some employees told him of their dis-
content with the Respondent’s action as it applied to them.
Grisham explained at the hearing that if current employees had
not yet reached the $10.75 an hour level as of March 22, 2016,
their pay was increased. However, employees who were mak-
ing $10.75 an hour or above, received no increase. Under the
contract wage scale, semiskilled trade employees who had
worked for the Respondent for 2 years at the time this an-
nouncement were making $10.90 an hour. Grisham testified
that there were approximately 200 employees who received no
wage increase pursuant to the Respondent’s change in the wage
scale.
Later in the day on March 22, Grisham met with Donahoe
and told him that the Respondent’s action in increasing the
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
starting wage rate to $10.75 an hour was creating some discon-
tent with respect to the manner in which it applied to current
employees. Grisham also told Donahoe that he could not in-
crease the wage rate by 75 cents an hour without bargaining
with the Union. Donahoe merely responded by saying he had to
increase the wages in order to attract new employees. Later in
the day on March 22, Grisham called Donahoe and told him
that employees who were currently in their probationary period
were frustrated that they were not eligible for the $1000 sign-on
bonus. Donahoe called Grisham back later that day and in-
formed him that the Respondent would agree to pay the cur-
rently employed probationary employees the $1000 sign-on
bonus, upon successful completion of their probationary period.
The parties met again on April 8, 2016, in an attempt to
reach an agreement regarding modifications to the contract,
including the starting wage rate for newly hired employees, but
were unable to reach an agreement.
Grisham testified that when he returned from vacation on
April 24 or 25, 2016, he listened to a voicemail message left on
his phone by Donahoe on April 21. According to Donahoe’s
message, effective on April 24, 2016, the Respondent was go-
ing to raise the starting wage rate for semiskilled employees
from $10.75 an hour to $11.50 an hour in order to attract new
hires. Grisham credibly testified that the Respondent had not
bargained with the Union regarding this change, and the Union
had not consented to it. After listening to Donahoe’s voicemail
message, Grisham later saw Donahoe in the plant and Donahoe
made a gesture crossing his fists. Grisham testified that he took
this to mean that Donahoe was indicating that his hands were
tied with regard to this issue.
On May 2, 2016, Grisham sent an email to Tarsha, reiterat-
ing a request originally made on April 12, 2016, asking that the
Respondent provide something in writing pertaining to the
entry level wage rate for semiskilled employees, the $1000
sign-on bonus and the $100 referral bonus. On May 10, Tarsha
replied in an email indicating that the entry-level wage rate was
$11.50 for semiskilled employees and that the sign-on and re-
ferral bonuses that Grisham’s email had referred to were cur-
rent and accurate. (GC Exh. 11.)
Tarsha credibly testified that as a result of the wage increase
to semiskilled employees, overtime, absenteeism and employee
turnover had decreased. In addition, she also testified that the
Respondent had brought back into the facility at approximately
55 percent of the work that had been outsourced, and that cus-
tomers no longer required daily or weekly updates. Finally, the
Respondent was no longer expediting shipments on a regular
basis.
Analysis
Whether the Wage Increase Granted to Skilled and Semiskilled
Employees Violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and
Section 8(d) of the Act.
As noted above, the Union and the Respondent are currently
signatory to a collective-bargaining agreement effective from
April 5, 2013, until April 5, 2018, covering the production and
maintenance employees employed by the Respondent at its
Tecumseh, Michigan facility. Pursuant to appendix A of this
agreement, there are specific starting wage rates and wage pro-
gression levels for both skilled employees and semiskilled em-
ployees. On November 30, 2015, the Respondent unilaterally
increased the wage rate for all skilled employees to $30 an
hour. Prior to that point, the starting wage rate had been $22.19
per hour for newly hired skilled employees. After 3 months
skilled employees received a raise to $24.10 an hour. On March
22, 2016, the Respondent unilaterally increased the starting
wage rate for semiskilled employees to $10.75 an hour. The
Respondent also unilaterally increased the wage rate of current
employees who were earning less than $10.75 an hour to that
amount. However, semiskilled employees who were being paid
more than that did not receive a wage increase. On April 24,
2016, the Respondent again unilaterally increased the wage rate
for semiskilled employees to $11.50 an hour. There is no record
evidence regarding the effect this wage increase had on current
employees earning less than the amount. Given the fact that
when the Respondent’s unilaterally increased the starting wage
rate for semiskilled employees to $10.75 an hour in March, it
also increased to that level the wages of all current employees
who were earning less than that amount, I draw the inference
that the Respondent took the same approach when it unilateral-
ly raised the starting wage to $11.50 in April. I also draw the
inference that semiskilled employees earning more than $11.50
an hour were not given a wage increase
Under the express terms of Section 8(d) of the Act, wages
are a mandatory subject of bargaining. In NLRB v. Katz, 369
U.S. 736, 743–745 (1962), the Supreme Court held that an
employer’s unilateral implementation of a wage increase vio-
lates Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. In Oak Cliff Golman
Baking Co., 207 NLRB 1063, 1064 (1973), the Board held that
the unambiguous language of Section 8(d) forbids an employer
from making a midterm modification of a contract’s wage pro-
visions without the union’s consent and noted that the union
has the privilege of refusing to grant consent. The Board found
that the respondent’s conduct in unilaterally reducing wages
during the term of its contract with the union, modified its col-
lective-bargaining agreement within the meaning of Section 8
(d) of the Act, and thereby violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1).
Since Oak Cliff Golman Baking Co., supra, the Board has
consistently held that an employer violates Section 8(a)(5) and
(1) and Section 8(d) of the Act during the term of a collective-
bargaining agreement by modifying any provision governing a
mandatory subject of bargaining, such as wages, without ob-
taining the union’s consent. Daycon Products Co., Inc., 357
NLRB 508 (2011), reaffirmed 360 NLRB No. 54 (2014); Re-
public Die & Tool Co., 343 NLRB 683, 686 (2004); St. Barna-
bas Medical Center, 341 NLRB 1325 (2004); Integrated Health
Services, 336 NLRB 575, 579 (2001); Wightman Center, 301
NLRB 573, 575-576 (1991) Mack Trucks, Inc., 294 NLRB 864
(1989). In several of the cases cited above, the employer unilat-
erally increased the wages of employees during the term of a
collective-bargaining agreement, the same action as that taken
by the Respondent in the instant case. St. Barnabas Medical
Center; Integrated Health Services; Wightman Center; Mack
Trucks Inc. supra.
In St. Barnabas Medical Center, supra at 1329, the Board re-
iterated the following applicable principle that was expressed in
Integrated Health Services, supra, at 579:
LENAWEE STAMPING CORPORATION D/B/A KIRCHHOFF VAN-ROB 7
The good intentions of the Respondent to stay in business and
to deliver quality patient care are, however, irrelevant to the
issue of whether the Respondent violated the Act when it uni-
laterally granted the wage increases during the term of the col-
lective-bargaining agreements. The unambiguous language of
Section 8(d) explicitly forbids midterm modification of a col-
lective-bargaining agreement’s wage provisions without the
Union’s consent
In the instant case, the Respondent contends that the shortage
of skilled die repairmen and semiskilled production employees
caused serious issues including the performance of an unsus-
tainable amount of overtime work, substantial outsourcing
costs, and the inability to perform preventive maintenance. The
cumulative effect of this series of problems led to customer
dissatisfaction. Respondent contends that the issues caused by
the shortage of employees threatened its continued existence.
The Respondent asserts that increasing the wages of skilled
employees and semiskilled production employees was neces-
sary to maintain the effective and efficient operation of its facil-
ity.
Respondent contends that the midterm modifications it made
to the wages of skilled and semiskilled employees is permitted
under its interpretation of the collective-bargaining agreement.
In this connection, the Respondent argues that the wage rates
set forth in the collective-bargaining agreement set forth the
minimum amount that the Respondent is required to pay, but
that there is nothing to prohibit the Respondent from paying a
higher wage rate. In addition, the Respondent contends that its
action in raising the wage rates of skilled and semiskilled trade
employees is permitted under the management-rights clause of
the existing collective-bargaining agreement which provides ,
inter alia, that the Respondent has the right to “make, enforce
and amend or revise such work rules and regulations as it may
from time to time, in its sole discretion, deems suitable for the
purpose of maintaining the order, safety and/or effective and
efficient operation of Company facilities.” (GC Exh. 2, art. 4,
sec. 2, p. 6.)
In support of its position, the Respondent relies on cases in
which the Board has refused to find a violation of Section
8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 8(d) on the basis that an employer’s
midterm modification of an agreement had a “sound, arguable
basis” in the contract. American Electric Power, 362 NLRB
No. 92 (2015); Bath Iron Works Corp., 345 NLRB 499, 501–
502 (2005), affd. sub nom. Bath Marine Draftsmen Assn. v.
NLRB, 475 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2007); Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire
Corp., 346 NLRB 949 (2006); Thermo Electron Corp., 287
NLRB 820 (1987); NCR Corp., 271 NLRB 1212, 1213 (1984).
In the instant case, the current collective-bargaining agree-
ment provides, in appendix A, a “Wage Progression Schedule
(2013–2018)” that states: “The Company shall follow the fol-
lowing wage scales during the term of the agreement:” The
agreement then provides, for both skilled and semiskilled em-
ployees, specific starting rates and wage progression scales
throughout the term of the collective-bargaining agreement.
There is absolutely no language in the collective-bargaining
agreement that provides that the Respondent has discretion with
respect to paying wages above those set forth in the collective-
bargaining agreement. For example, there is nothing in the
agreement that indicates that the Respondent can pay wages
within a certain range. There is certainly nothing to support the
Respondent’s position that the collective-bargaining agreement
sets minimum wage rates and that the Respondent has the un-
fettered discretion to pay more than that. In this regard, I find
that the Respondent’s right to make or revise “work rules and
regulations” does not apply to the specific wage rates set forth
in appendix A of the parties collective-bargaining agreement.
Thus I find that the employer’s interpretation of the agreement
does not have a “sound, arguable basis”; rather, I find it to be
implausible.
None of the cases relied on by the Respondent involve a con-
flict between the General Counsel and a respondent regarding
the interpretation of express wage rates set forth in a collective-
bargaining agreement. While the cases relied on by the Re-
spondent involve the consideration of differing contract inter-
pretations regarding a variety of other mandatory subjects of
bargaining, in each one, the Board found that there was a plau-
sible contract interpretation to support the respondent’s posi-
tion. In such situations, the Board holds that, when the dispute
is solely one of contract interpretation and there is no evidence
of, animus, bad faith or an intent to undermine the union, “the
Board does not seek to determine which of two equally plausi-
ble contract interpretations is correct.” American Electric Pow-
er, supra, slip op. at 3; Phelps Dodge Magnet Wire Corp., su-
pra, at 951. It is on that basis that the Board refuses to find a
violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 8(d) of the Act
in such situations.
In the instant case, since there is no language in the current
collective-bargaining agreement between the parties that sup-
ports the Respondent’s interpretation of the agreement, I find
the cases relied on by the Respondent to be distinguishable.
Rather, I find the instant case to be similar to Hospital San
Carlos Borromeo, 355 NLRB 153 (2010). In that case, the
Board found that the respondent did not have a sound, arguable
basis for its contract interpretation. Rather, the Board found that
the respondent’s interpretation was implausible. Accordingly,
the Board found that the respondent’s refusal to pay employees
the full amount of the Christmas bonus owed to them under the
parties’ collective-bargaining agreements violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
As noted above, the Respondent also contends that the man-
agement-rights clause of the collective-bargaining agreement
supports its position that it is permitted to make midterm wage
increases in order to maintain effective and efficient facility
operations (GC Exh. 2, art. 4, sec. 2). However, the manage-
ment-rights clause specifically indicates that the Respondent
“has all rights, powers, prerogatives, authority and functions
except as those rights, powers prerogatives, authority and func-
tions are expressly and specifically restricted by the written
provisions of this Agreement.” (GC Exh. 2, art. 4, sec. 3.) As
noted above, Appendix A of the collective-bargaining agree-
ment clearly sets forth the wages to be paid during the term of
the agreement.
In determining whether a management rights clause permits
an employer to unilaterally change a mandatory subject of bar-
gaining during the term of a collective-bargaining agreement,
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD8
the Board applies its long held “clear and unmistakable waiver”
standard. This standard “requires bargaining partners to une-
quivocally and specifically express the mutual intention to
permit unilateral employer action with respect to a particular
employment term, notwithstanding the statutory duty to bargain
that would otherwise apply.” Provena St. Joseph Medical Cen-
ter, 350 NLRB 808, 811 (2007). It is, of course, the case that
the union’s actual consent is required before a mandatory sub-
ject of bargaining contained in a collective-bargaining agree-
ment can be modified. Id. at fn. 16. It is the burden of the party
asserting a waiver of bargaining rights to establish its existence.
Philadelphia Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 340 NLRB 349, 353
(2003).
In the instant case, the general language that the Respondent
relies on in the management-rights clause certainly does not
establish that the parties have unequivocally and specifically
expressed the mutual intention to permit unilateral employer
action with respect to the wage rates specifically set forth in the
collective-bargaining agreement.
I also note that there is no reopener provision in the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement between the parties regarding wages.
Since there is no wage reopener provision, the fact that the
parties met and discussed various proposals regarding modifi-
cations to the collective-bargaining agreement, including the
wages of skilled and semiskilled employees, did not impose
traditional bargaining obligations on the parties. St Barnabas
Medical Center, supra, at 1325.The only manner in which the
Respondent could have lawfully implemented the wage in-
creases granted to skilled and semiskilled employees was to
obtain the Union’s consent. Since it did not do so, the Respond-
ent’s implementation of wage increases to the skilled employ-
ees on November 30, 2015, and the semiskilled employees on
March 22 and April 24, 2016,5 during the term of the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement, violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and
Section 8(d) of the Act.
Whether the Respondent’s Unilateral Grant of New Hire Refer-
ral and Sign-On Bonuses to Unit Employees violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act
The first issue for resolution is whether the new hire referral
and sign-on bonuses are mandatory subjects of bargaining. In
Ohio Edison Co., 362 NLRB No. 88, JD slip op. at 10 (2015),
the Board reiterated some of the applicable principles with
respect to this issue as follows:
Section 8(d) of the Act requires that an employer bargain with

5 Par. 14(b) of the complaint alleges that “about March 28, 2016” the
Respondent unilaterally awarded a wage increase to semiskilled em-
ployees. In conjunction with paragraphs 15 and 16 of the complaint, the
complaint alleges that the Respondent's conduct violated Sec. 8(a)(5)
and (1) and Sec. 8 (d) of the Act. While the complaint does not specifi-
cally allege the wage increase that the Respondent granted to semi-
skilled employees on April 24, 2016, to be a violation of the Act, there
is an extremely close connection between the specific allegation of the
complaint and the Respondent’s nearly identical unilateral conduct in
April 2016. Accordingly, I find the Respondent's April 24, 2016 con-
duct is sufficiently related to the complaint allegation for me to consid-
er it as an unfair labor practice. Hi-Tech Cable Corp., 318 NLRB 280
(1995), enfd. in part, 128 F.3d 271 (5th Cir. 1997).
a union representing its employees with respect to “wages,
hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.” It is
clear that an employer has a duty to bargain with the union
over mandatory subjects of bargaining and that its failure to
do so violates Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. First Nation-
al Maintenance Corp. v. NLRB, 452 U.S. 666, 679-682
(1981); NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736, 743 (1962). In Postal
Service, 302 NLRB 767, 776 (1991) the Board noted that it
“has broadly construed the term ‘wages’ in Section 8(d) of the
Act to include “emoluments of value. . . which may accrue to
employees out of the employment relationship.” Central Illi-
nois Public Service Co., 139 NLRB 1407 (1962). In other
words the term “wages” does not refer to a sum of money
given for actual hours worked; rather it also encompasses
numerous other forms of compensation.”
The Board has held that it finds payments to employees, in-
cluding bonuses, to constitute wages and thus a mandatory
subject of bargaining, when there are clear ties to employment-
related factors. North American Pipe Corp., 347 NLRB 836,
837–838 (2006). In Phelps Dodge Mining Co., 308 NLRB 985
(1992), enf. denied 922 F.3d 1493 (10th Cir. 1994), the Board
found that “appreciation payments” in amounts of up to $1000
constituted significant employment benefits to eligible employ-
ees, based on the employment-related factors of wages and
hours worked, and thus constituted a mandatory subject of bar-
gaining over which the respondent was required to bargain.
In the instant case, the record clearly establishes that the Re-
spondent had a substantial need to hire new skilled and semi-
skilled employees and to retain employees who were currently
employed. In an effort to assist it in alleviating the manpower
shortage the Respondent was experiencing, it offered a $100
referral bonus to existing unit employees if they referred an
individual to the Respondent and the referred employee com-
pleted the probationary period. The payment of both the referral
bonus and the sign-on bonus are clearly tied to the employ-
ment-related factor of hiring new employees who successfully
complete the probationary period. In addition, the payment of
the referral bonus, in effect, constitutes a wage increase for
currently employed employees and the sign-on bonus, in effect,
constitutes a substantial wage increase to newly hired employ-
ees who successfully complete the probationary period. It is
clear that both the referral and sign-on bonuses constitute man-
datory subjects of bargaining and thus the Respondent was
obligated to give notice and an opportunity to bargain with the
Union before implementing the bonuses.
On March 22, 2016, the Respondent announced to the em-
ployees assembled at a “state of the business” meeting that it
was implementing the referral and sign-up bonuses. On the
same date, the Respondent posted flyers in the facility advising
employees of the implementation of these programs. The Union
was not given prior notice or an opportunity to bargain over the
bonus plans prior to their implementation. As noted above,
Grisham found out about the implementation of these programs
at the same time as unit employees by virtue of his attendance
at the meeting held on March 22. After the meeting, several
employees who were currently in their probationary periods
spoke to Grisham and told him that they were frustrated by the
LENAWEE STAMPING CORPORATION D/B/A KIRCHHOFF VAN-ROB 9
fact that they were not eligible for the sign-on bonus, as it
would be granted only to employees who started after March
22. Grisham called Donahoe later that day and informed him of
the frustration of the current employees in the probationary
period regarding the fact that they were not eligible for the
$1000 sign-on bonus. The Respondent then agreed that it would
pay currently employed probationary employees the $1000
sign-on bonus upon the successful completion of their proba-
tionary period.
It is clear that the Respondent did not provide the Union’s
with prior notice and an opportunity to bargain to regarding the
referral and sign-on bonuses before they were implemented on
March 22, 2016. Rather, the Union found out about the imple-
mentation of the bonuses at the same time as unit employees.
The standards utilized by the Board in determining whether a
respondent has unlawfully failed to notify the union in advance
of an implemented change in a mandatory subject of bargaining
are set forth in Ciba-Geigy Pharmaceuticals Division, 264
NLRB 1013 (1982), enfd. 722 F.2d 1120, 1126–1127 (3d Cir.
1983). In that case the Board indicated:
The Board has long recognized that, where a union received
timely notice that the employer intends to change a condition
of employment, it must properly request that the employer
bargain over the matter. To be timely, the notice must be giv-
en sufficiently in advance of the actual implementation of the
change to allow a reasonable opportunity to bargain. Howev-
er, if the notice is too short a time before the implementation
or because the employer has no intention of changing its
mind, then the notice is nothing more than informing the un-
ion of a fait accompli. [Footnotes omitted.]
The Board has consistently applied these standards in deter-
mining whether a respondent’s unilateral change in a mandato-
ry subject of bargaining violates Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act. Ohio Edison Co., supra, JD slip op. at 12; Roll & Hold
Warehouse & Distribution Corp., 325 NLRB 41, 42 (1997);
Intersystems Design and Technology Corp., 278 NLRB 759
(1986).
Applying those standards to the instant case, the Respondent
did not give the Union prior notice or an opportunity to bargain
before notifying unit employees of its newly implemented poli-
cy regarding referral and sign-on bonuses. Rather, the Union
found out about these new policies at the same time as unit
employees. Thus, the Union was presented with a fait accompli.
The fact that the Respondent discussed with the Union the
manner in which the sign-on bonus would be applied to em-
ployees currently in the probationary period, did not cure the
Respondent’s failure to give notice and an opportunity to bar-
gain to the Union before the sign-on bonus was implemented.
The Respondent was obligated to give the Union notice in ad-
vance of implementation in order to allow good-faith bargain-
ing to occur. Woodland Clinic, 331 NLRB 735, 738 (2000).
I also note there is nothing in the parties’ current collective-
bargaining agreement that would privilege its unilateral imple-
mentation of the referral and sign-on bonuses. The only men-
tion of a bonus in the collective-bargaining agreement is that it
provides that all employees would receive a $1000 one-time
signing bonus to be paid within 30 days of the ratification of
the collective-bargaining agreement (GC Exh. 2, p. 88). There
is nothing in the collective bargaining agreement that establish-
es that the Union waived its bargaining rights with respect to
the implementation of a referral and sign-on bonus during the
term of the collective bargaining agreement under the standards
set forth above in Provena St. Joseph Medical Center, supra.
On the basis of the foregoing, I find that the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by unilaterally granting
referral and sign-on bonuses to unit employees beginning on
March 22, 2016.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local 3000, International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW), AFL–CIO (the Union), is, and, at all material times,
was the exclusive bargaining representative in the following
appropriate unit:
All regular full-time production and maintenance employees
employed by the Respondent at its Tecumseh, Michigan facil-
ity; but excluding office clerical employees, group leaders,
temporary workers, guards and supervisors as defined in the
National Labor Relations Act, and all other employees.
2. The Respondent and the Union are parties to a collective-
bargaining agreement that is effective by its terms from April 5,
2013, until April 5, 2018.
3. The Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 8(d) of the Act by,
on November 30, 2015, unilaterally granting wage increases to
skilled unit employees and by, on March 22 and April 24, 2016,
unilaterally granting wage increases to semiskilled unit em-
ployees, without the consent of the Union.
4. The Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices in viola-
tion of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by, beginning on March 22,
2016, unilaterally granting referral and sign-on bonuses to unit
employees without giving the Union prior notice and an oppor-
tunity to bargain.
5. The above unfair labor practices affect commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6,) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I shall order it to cease and desist therefrom
and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act. I shall order the Respondent to rescind,
upon the request of the Union, the wage increases granted to
skilled and unskilled employees. St. Barnabas Medical Center;
Integrated Health Services; Wightman Center; Mack Trucks
Inc. supra. I shall also order the Respondent to rescind, upon
the request of the Union, the referral and sign-on bonuses
granted to unit employees and bargain with the Union if it de-
sires to grant referral and sign-on bonuses to unit employees.
Washington Beef, Inc., 328 NLRB 612, 613, 621 (1999).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD10
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended6
ORDER
The Respondent, Lewanee Stamping Corp. d/b/a Kirchhoff
Van-Rob, Tecumseh, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain with Local 3000, International Un-
ion, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America (UAW), AFL–CIO (the Union), in
the following appropriate unit, by unilaterally implementing
wage increases to unit employees during the term of a collec-
tive bargaining agreement, without the consent of the Union.
The appropriate bargaining unit is:
All regular full-time production and maintenance employees
employed by the Respondent at its Tecumseh facility; but ex-
cluding office clerical employees, group leaders, temporary
workers, guards and supervisors as defined in the National
Labor Relations Act, and all other employees
(b) Refusing to bargain with the Union by unilaterally grant-
ing referral and sign-on bonuses to unit employees without
giving notice and an opportunity to bargain to the Union.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
(a) On request of the Union, rescind the wage increases giv-
en to skilled unit employees on November 30, 2015, and to
semiskilled unit employees on March 22 and April 24, 2016.
(b) On request of the Union, rescind the referral and sign-on
bonuses granted to unit employees beginning on March 22,
2016, and give notice and an opportunity to bargain to the Un-
ion regarding granting such bonuses to unit employees.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cility in Tecumseh, Michigan, copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”7 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 and maintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous places including all places where notices to employees
are customarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper
notices, the notices shall be distributed electronically, such as
by email, posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other
electronic means, if the Respondent customarily communicates

6 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopt-
ed by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for
all purposes.
7 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.”
with its employees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be
taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not al-
tered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the event
that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Respondent
has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these
proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its
own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and
former employees employed by the Respondent at any time
since November 30, 2015.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. December 22, 2016.
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this no-
tice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with Local 3000, Internation-
al Union United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Im-
plement Workers of America (UAW), AFL–CIO (the Union),
in the following appropriate unit, by unilaterally implementing
wage increases during the term of a collective bargaining
agreement, without the consent of the Union. The appropriate
bargaining unit is:
All regular full-time production and maintenance employees
employed by the Respondent at its Tecumseh, Michigan facil-
ity; but excluding office clerical employees, group leaders,
temporary workers, guards and supervisors as defined in the
National Labor Relations Act, and all other employees.
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with the Union by unilateral-
ly granting referral and sign-on bonuses to unit employees
without giving notice and an opportunity to bargain to the Un-
ion.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed them by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, on request of the Union, rescind the wage increas-
LENAWEE STAMPING CORPORATION D/B/A KIRCHHOFF VAN-ROB 11
es given to skilled unit employees on November 30, 2015, and
to semiskilled unit employees on March 22 and April 24, 2016.
WE WILL, on request of the Union, rescind the referral and
sign-on bonuses granted to unit employees on or after March
22, 2016, and give notice and an opportunity to bargain to the
Union regarding granting such bonuses to unit employees.
LENAWEE STAMPING CORPORATION D/B/A KIRCHHOFF
VAN-ROB
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/07-CA-168498 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision
from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1099 14th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling
(202) 273-1940.