Planet Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1970

185 N.L.R.B. 509 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

PLANET CORPORATION
Planet Corporation and Shopmen 's Local Union No.
802, International Association of Bridge , Structu-
ral, and Ornamental Iron Workers , AFL-CIO.
Case 7-CA-7010
August 27, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On December 10, 1969, Trial Examiner James V.
Constantine issued his Decision in the above-entitled
matter, finding that Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Decision and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in' connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are here-
by affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and brief, and
the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner to the extent consistent herewith.
As more fully set forth in the Trial Examiner's
Decision, the facts are as follows:
Sometime prior to 1959, and long before the Union's
advent, Respondent granted its employees certain
insurance benefits under group insurance policies
issued by Minnesota Mutual Insurance Company and
Inter-Ocean Insurance Company. Beginning in 1959,
Respondent decided to provide similar, although not
identical, benefits to employees who retired from its
service. The benefits were provided through amend-
ment riders to the Minnesota Mutual and Inter-Ocean
policies. The decision as to whether a retired employee
would receive benefits was made on an individual
basis at the time of his retirement by Respondent's
president, Groenvald, after consultation with Person-
nel Manager Haley. During the period 1959-68, such
benefits were granted to six employees whose ages
at time of retirement ranged from 64 to 69, and
whose years of service with Respondent varied from
6 to 13 years. Of the six, two employees were engineers,
and four were production and maintenance employees.
509
Of those four, only one retired after the Union became
the recognized bargaining representative of employees
in the production and maintenance unit. One employ-
ee, of comparable age and length of service, was
not granted these benefits '
In 1962, the Union was certified as the exclusive
representative of Respondent's production and mainte-
nance employees. Since that time, the parties have
peacefully negotiated and signed four collective-bar-
gaining agreements, the current one being effective
from February 1968 through February 1971.
During negotiations for each of the first three collec-
tive-bargaining agreements, neither side mentioned
or discussed the payment by Respondent of insurance
benefits to retired employees, although Respondent
in fact continued to provide such benefits until June
15, 1968. During the negotiations for the 1968 agree-
ment, the Union proposed that the agreement contain
language specifically continuing insurance benefits for
the retired employees. This proposal was rejected
by Haley, Respondent's chief negotiator on insurance
benefits, with the statement that he would take care
of them as in the past. During these negotiations,
the Union successfully insisted that the medical-hospi-
talization-surgical benefits be provided under a policy
carried with Blue Cross and Blue Shield. It is undisput-
ed that the changeover to Blue Cross-Blue Shield
necessitated a cancellation of the existing group insur-
ance policies, and that their cancellation for produc-
tion and maintenance employees necessarily brought
about the cancellation of the amendment riders under
which the retired employees were covered.
In accordance with the provisions of the 1968
agreement, Respondent purchased Blue Cross and
Blue Shield coverage for its production and mainte-
nance employees, and cancelled the Minnesota Mutual
and Inter-Ocean policies on June 15.
On July 10, 1968, Respondent wrote each of the
six retired employees as follows:
Planet Corporation has recently discontinued its
group policy with Inter-Ocean Insurance Compa-
ny and Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Compa-
ny.
The purpose of this letter is to advise you that
you have the right to contact the insurance com-
pany prior to July 15, 1968 (next Monday) and
convert the group policies previously carried by
the company to individual policies on which
you will pay the premiums direct to the insurance
companies involved.
The complaint alleges that, by writing the July
10 letter without notification to or discussion with
' The Trial Examiner incorrectly characterized 69 other employees
as retirees
185 NLRB No. 37
510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Union, Respondent interfered with, restrained,
and coerced employees in the exercise of Section
7 rights and refused to bargain collectively with the
Union, thereby violating Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of
the Act.
The Trial Examiner concluded that Respondent
unilaterally abolished or modified insurance benefits
of retirees, and that such unilateral action violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.'
In disagreement with the Trial Examiner, we find
that the General Counsel has not established a viola-
tion of the Act. The complaint, as noted above,
is very narrowly drawn; it alleges that the sending
of the July 10 letter without notice to the Union
interfered with employees' exercise of Section 7 rights
and constituted a refusal to bargain with the Union.
However, that letter merely notified employees that
group insurance policies providing their benefits had
been cancelled and that they had the right to exercise
the right of conversion to individual policies provided
in the group policies. We perceive no interference
with employee rights in such notice, nor do we see
how its sending constituted an abolishment of the
insurance program and, hence, constituted a refusal
to bargain with the Union.
The Trial Examiner rested his finding of a violation
on the broader ground that the cancellation of the
insurance benefits constituted the violation of 8(a)(5).
However, it abundantly appears that the cancellation
of the underlying insurance policies flowed from the
Union's success in negotiating a fundamental change
in the insurance benefits provided Respondent's
employees when it persuaded the employer to agree
to its demand that the insurance program be changed
over to Blue Cross-Blue Shield. Blue Shield. Such
action clearly necessitated the cancellation of the Min-
nesota Mutual and Inter-Ocean policies. Their cancel-
lation inevitably resulted in the concellation of
amendment riders thereto which provided the
' The Trial Examiner made certain subsidiary findings necessary to
his finding of a violation of the Act Thus , he found that the retirees
involved herein are employees within the meaning of the Act, that
Respondent had adopted a plan, practice , or policy of providing certain
insurance benefits to retirees ; that the insurance benefits so provided
were a condition of employment embraced within the category of mandato-
ry subjects of bargaining and consequently could not be unilaterally
modified without bargaining with the Union Cf Pittsburgh Plate Glass
Company, 177 NLRB No 114, enforcement denied 427 F 2d 936 (C A
6) In view of our disposition of the issues herein, we deem it unnecessary
to pass upon these subsidiary findings We do reject the Trial Examiner's
finding that Haley's comment that he would take care of retirees as
in the past amounted to an oral contract to continue the past benefits
The statement is too ambiguous to permit such a finding , it could mean
only that the Company would continue to make its own determination
as to such benefits Moreover, the Trial Examiner failed to take into
account the testimony of Union negotiators that they were aware that
Haley took matters back to Groenvald for approval, and the fact that,
though Haley appeared to be the chief negotiator on insurance matters,
he was not the only negotiator , nor did he execute the contract
insurance benefits for the retirees. We conclude,
therefore, that the concellation of the retirees'
insurance benefits was not in a realistic sense
unilateral action by Respondent Accordingly, we do
not adopt the Trial Examiner's conclusion that it was
a violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (I) of the Act, and
we shall dismiss the complaint
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint
herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
JAMES V CONSTANTINE, Trial Examiner This is an
unfair labor practice case brought pursuant to Section 10(b)
of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act
29 U.S.C. 160(b). It is based on a charge filed on October
31, 1968, by Shopmen's Local Union No. 802, International
Association of Bridge, Structural, and Ornamental Iron
Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union or Local
802. Thereafter the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, through the Regional Director for Region
7 (Detroit, Michigan), issued a complaint against Respond-
ent, Planet Corporation, on August 13, 1969.
In essence the complaint alleges that Respondent has
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1), and that such conduct
affects commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7), of the Act. Respondent has answered admitting some
facts, but denying that it committed any unfair labor prac-
tices
Pursuant to due notice, this case came on to be heard,
and was tried before me, on September 24, 1969, at Lansing,
Michigan. All parties were represented at and participated
in the trial, and had full opportunity to adduce evidence,
examine and cross-examine witnesses, file briefs, and offer
oral argument. At the conclusion of the trial Respondent
and the General Counsel argued orally Respondent also
has submitted a brief.
The question in this case is whether benefits enjoyed
by retirees of Respondent as a result of its voluntary granting
of them, i.e., not flowing from collective bargaining, are
matters upon which Respondent must bargain collectively
with the Union during the period of such retirement.
Upon the entire record in this case, and from my observa-
tion of the witnesses, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. AS TO JURISDICTION
Respondent , a Michigan corporation , is engaged at Lans-
ing, Michigan , in manufacturing, selling , and distributing
conveyors, automated products, and related products. Dur-
ing the year ending December 31, 1968, Respondent shipped
PLANET CORPORATION 511
products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points
located outside the State of Michigan. I find that Respondent
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act, and that it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction over Respondent
in this proceeding
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 802 is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
reaching age 65 Brewer left on March 31, 1967, after
having been employed by Respondent for 21 years. Brewer
and five other employees, the only ones whose benefits
are in issue in this case, who left Respondent's employ
after January 1, 1959, had premiums on their insurance
benefits paid by Respondent from the time they severed
their employment (i.e , retired) until June 15, 1968, when
Respondent discontinued two insurance policies (one for
group life insurance and one for group hospitalization)
covering its employees Dependents of these six were not
covered by such insurance. These six, and their ages at
retirement, are:
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Prior to 1962 Respondent's production and maintenance
employees were not represented by any labor organization
Before 1959 Respondent at its own expense granted certain
insurance benefits to its employees and their dependents
Beginning in 1959 Respondent adopted a "plan" whereby
these benefits were extended to retired employees. According
to President Groenvald of Respondent, such "plan was
not meant to automatically include each employee who
retired"; instead, Groenvald would confer with Haley, its
personnel manager, "as to whether or not we should extend
the insurance coverage to that individual" who retired.
See General Counsel's Exhibit 2
On November 9, 1962, Local 802 was certified as the
exclusive bargaining representative of Respondent's produc-
tion and maintenance employees Since February, 1963,
Respondent has had contractual relations with Local 802
as the exclusive bargaining agent of the former's production
and maintenance employees at its Lansing, Michigan, plant.
In their contract executed in February, 1963, and expiring
in February, 1964, the parties agreed, among other things,
that "Insurance Benefits now in effect paid for by the
employer shall continue to exist for the duration of this
agreement." See Section 14 of General Counsel's Exhibit
5. Respondent and Local 802 also executed a 1-year contract
on February 28, 1964.
In the contract entered into by the parties effective Febru-
ary 1965, and terminating in February 1968, the parties
agreed that "All employees and their dependents (if any)
shall be fully covered by [insurance] benefits on the 31st
day of such employee's employment and shall continue
to be fully covered while such employee is in the employ
of the company . . The Company agrees to pay the
full cost of [said] benefits for the duration of the collective
bargaining agreement." See General Counsel's Exhibit 4,
section 14(G) and 14(H)
Since February 28, 1968, the parties have been operating
under the current contract which runs until February 27,
1971. See General Counsel's Exhibit 3. Section 14 thereof
provides that Respondent "at its own cost and expense"
shall obtain insurance benefits for each employee and his
or her dependents Such contract is silent as to any such
advantages for retirees
Respondent's records disclose that 69 nonshop employees
had terminated their employment (i.e , retired) since January
1, 1959 Of those only one, Arthur Brewer, an engineer,
left employment with 8 or more years of service and after
John Sayles 69 Arthur Brewer 65
Eric Wieland 67 Clinton Stockstill 68
William Clark 69 George Harrison 64
The number of years of service of each with Respondent
is as follows- Clark 12, Wieland 8, Sayles 12, Brewer
21, Harrison 12 or 13, Stockstill 6. Clark left Respondent's
employ in January 1959, Wieland on March 27, 1961,
Sayles on September 18, 1962, Harrison on March 31,
1968, and Stockstill on December 31, 1967.
Under the group life insurance policy discontinued by
Respondent in June 1968, Brewer and Stockstill, both of
whom are engineers and nonshop employees, and hence
not in the production and maintenance unit, were insured
in the amount of $2,000, while Sales, Wieland, Clark,
and Harrison were insured for $1,000 each; and all six
were insured for accidental death, dismemberment, and
loss of sight in an amount each to one-half of the amount
of his above-described life insurance. Under the group hospi-
talization policy (which also included surgical benefits)
these six persons were entitled to benefits comparable to
those set forth in a booklet entitled "The Program of
Group Insurance." (See G C. Exh. 6.) Said Exhibit 6
describes the group hospitalization and surgical benefits
insurance applicable only to Respondent's employees. But
coverage for these six persons arose solely as a result
of a "group certificate amendment rider" (G C Exh 7)
extending the benefits of the booklet (G C. Exh. 6) to
Respondent's retirees as modified by said rider. Said booklet,
i e , General Counsel's Exhibit 6, was part of the contract
between the Union and Respondent for the period from
February 28, 1965, to February 28, 1968
During the negotiations culminating in the contract of
1963 between the parties, neither side mentioned or discussed
the payment by Respondent of insurance benefits for retirees.
Nor were such payments discussed in negotiations leading
to the signing of the 1964 and 1965 contracts between
Respondent and Local 802 However, the subject came
up in or about February 1968, in the negotiations resulting
in the current contract, i.e., that executed in 1968 for
a period of 3 years Although Respondent's bargaining
representative, Haley, at those 1968 sessions had died before
the trial of this case, I nevertheless received testimony
from the General Counsel's witnesses as to what transpired
at such meetings. Cf. Kline Iron Steel Company, 178 NLRB
No 73. Thus I find that while Local 802 asked that
insurance benefits of retirees be incorporated into the con-
tract, Haley replied he would take care of them as in
512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the past but expressed opposition to including them in
the contract . However, Haley did not refer to any possible
discontinuance of such benefits Nor did Respondent at
any time since then notify Local 802 that such benefits
would be abolished ; rather , Respondent wrote individual
letters directly to each of the six retirees mentioned above
that their insurance benefits would cease on June 15, 1968.
Respondent now has a pension plan whereby employees
with not less than 5 years of service are eligible to receive
benefits thereunder Nevertheless the six mentioned above
will not receive any benefits from this plan because it
had not been adopted at the time when each retired
Ewald Wrach , a machinist in Respondent 's production
and maintenance unit , was hired on April 26, 1954, and
left its employ on March 31, 1961, at the age of 67.
But he never received any insurance benefits from Respond-
ent after his employment terminated.
Since June 16, 1968, Respondent provides Blue Cross-
Blue Shield benefits for nonsalaried and factory employees
pursuant to its contract with Local 802 . Retirees are not
covered by this policy . This insurance carrier replaces Inter-
Ocean Insurance Company, which gave coverage for hospi-
talization and surgical benefits , and Minnesota Mutual
Insurance Company, which provided coverage for life insur-
ance The group policies of Inter-Ocean and Minnesota
Mutual covered both employees and those, i.e , retirees,
who had left Respondent's employ, but these two group
policies were cancelled on June 15, 1968, by Respondent
and were replaced by a group policy written by Blue
Cross-Blue Shield , as mentioned above Blue Cross-Blue
Shield insures only employees working in the maintenance
and production unit , and does not cover retirees It was
not possible to continue these two group policies, i e ,
those of Inter-Ocean and of Minnesota Mutual , for the
six retirees mentioned above. Hence no insurance has been
provided to retirees of Respondent since June 15, 1968,
as persons not actually employed by Respondent are ineligi-
ble to receive benefits under the Blue Cross -Blue Shield
policy.
Concluding Findings and Discussion
Initially, I find that the six persons who left Respondent's
employment , i.e., Sayles, Wieland , Clark, Brewer,
Stockstill , and Harrison , are retirees This follows from the
fact, which I find, that they were not laid off or discharged,
that the only reason they stopped working for Respondent
was because of their advanced age, that their chances
thereafter of obtaining full employment with Respondent or
another employer were negligible , and that Respondent's
president and personnel manager regarded them as retirees
This last finding is in part based on President Gronvald's
affidavit that Personnel Manager "Haley approached me
about . . . insurance benefits to a retired employee .. .
Thereafter each time an employee retired I conferred with
Mr. Haley as to whether or not we should extend the
insurance coverage to that individual ." (See G C Exh. 2 )
Hence I do not accept Respondent ' s argument that these six
merely departed from Respondent 's employ and that they
may not be considered to have retired.
No contrary result is dictated because one of the six
was reemployed by Respondent on a part-time basis or
because all six were not precluded from obtaining employ-
ment elsewhere This is because a retiree 's status is not
altered when he again obtains employment with his former
or another employer, so long as the emoluments incidental
to retirement are not severed Thus retirees of one employer
who thereafter worked for another employer have been
held not to lose their status as retirees of the first employer
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, 177 NLRB No 114. This
is so even though the retiree may be enjoying Social Security
benefits while working for an employer Holiday Inns of
America, Inc., 176 NLRB No 124
Further, I find that two of these retirees , Brewer and
Stockstill , were not in the appropriate unit involved in
this proceeding , and so Respondent was not obligated to
bargain with Local 802 regarding their insurance benefits
received as retirees , if it lawfully was required to bargain
for those retiring from said unit.
At this point I find that the following employees constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees employed
by the Respondent at its Lansing, Michigan, plant,
excluding office clerical employees , technical employ-
ees, and guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act
And I further find that since November 9, 1962, Local
802 has been the exclusive bargaining representative of
all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of
employment , or other conditions of employment, within
the contemplation of Section 9(a) of the Act.
Further, I find that Respondent had adopted a plan , practice,
or policy of paying the premiums on group insurance
policies which conferred benefits upon retirees beginning
since early 1959 (See G.C. Exh 2). While it is true that
Respondent's president and personnel manager did not
grant such benefits as a matter of course, it is equally
true that these two company officials "each time an employee
retires . conferred ... as to whether or not we should
extend the insurance coverage to that individual." This
action is characterized as a "plan " by Respondent's presi-
dent (See G.C Exh 2.)
Thus it is patent , and I find, that Respondent always
considered each retiree as a potential recipient of insurance
benefits. In addition , with the exception of retiree Wrach,
who for some unexplained reason did not receive such
benefits, every retiree considered for insurance benefits did
receive them It follows, and I find, that Respondent by
such regular conduct had adopted a plan, practice, or
policy of granting insurance benefits to retirees. Hence
I find that granting or withholding of such benefits was
not at the discretion of the employer, and that retirees
could reasonably expect to receive the same . New Orleans
Board of Trade, Ltd., 152 NLRB 1258, 1259, General
Telephone Company, 144 NLRB 311, 313-314, Gravenslund
Operating Company, 168 NLRB No 72
Further, I find that benefits received regularly by retirees
as a matter of the employer' s practice or policy are compre-
hended by the words "rates of pay, wages, . . or other
PLANET CORPORATION
conditions of employment " in Section 9(a) of the Act.
For such benefits are not given as gratuities or as a matter
of discretion but, rather , constitute part of the delayed
or deferred compensation of an employee which becomes
payable to him when he retires The cases cited in the
preceding paragraph support, if they do not require, this
conclusion.
Since such benefits are embraced within the category
of compulsory bargainable matters as to persons actually
employed by Respondent , the final question is whether
these benefits lose this status when retirees are no longer
working in the unit represented by Local 802 On this
issue I find that benefits received by retirees as delayed
or deferred compensation for work performed by them
as employees are the subjects of compulsory bargaining
between the employer and Local 802. I find that they
constitute an emolument of value which accrued out of
the employment relationship . Consequently, such benefits
may not be unilaterally modified by the employer without
bargaining with Local 802 thereon This result is dictated
by Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, 177 NLRB No. 114.
In my opinion , Ingraham Industries, 178 NLRB No. 89,
72 LRRM 1245, is distinguishable.
As Respondent cancelled the insurance benefits of four
retirees who were former employees in the production and
maintenance unit, I find that such conduct constitutes
a refusal to bargain collectively with Local 802, contrary
to the provisions of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
It is no defense that three of these retirees left Respondent's
employ before the advent of the Union For the benefits
received by said retirees emerged as a result of their being
employed in a unit now represented by Local 802, and
said retirees must be reckoned to be employees currently
represented by Local 802 for purposes of deferred compensa-
tion Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, 177 NLRB No. 114
Hence benefits received by such retirees as compensation
for work performed affect the present members of the
bargaining unit and for this reason also are bargainable
matters Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, supra.
Nor is a different result required because the current
contract between the parties fails to mention these benefits
although they were discussed at the bargaining sessions
leading to its execution . In other words, I find no waiver
by the Union of the subject matter by reason of the fact
that the contract omits reference to it Two reasons account
for this:
1 Respondent 's representative , Haley, assured the Union
at the 1968 bargaining sessions that said benefits would
be continued in force. The parol evidence rule does not
forbid a finding to this effect as I find Haley's words
amount to an addition or an oral rider to the contract
and, as such , is enforceable , as the Union accepted it.
Nor is it a defense that Haley, as contended by Respondent
(See G.C. Exh 2) is alleged to lack authority to offer
to continue such benefits. This is because such limitation
on his authority was never communicated to the Union,
and it was within the apparent scope of his authority
to make such a concession on behalf of Respondent. But
see NL.R B v Coletti Color Prints, Inc., 387 F 2d 298,
304-305 (C.A 2).
513
2. In any event , I find no waiver of this subject matter
by the Union, regardless of Haley's authority to commit
Respondent thereon , because Local 802, on the evidence
unfolded by the record , did not intentionally , or consciously,
or clearly and unmistakably , relinquish or abandon its
right or prerogative to bargain upon this subject. Timken
Roller Bearing Company v N L R.B., 325 F 2d 746, 751
(C A. 6), N.L. R.B. v. Perkins Machine Company , 326 F.2d
488, 489 (C.A. 1); Jacobs Manufacturing Company, 94
NLRB 1214 , enfd . 196 F.2d 680 , 683-684 (C.A. 2); Beacon
Piece Dyeing Co., 121 NLRB 953, 956 . See Speidel Corpora-
tion , 120 NLRB 733, 740-741.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON
COMMERCE
The activities of Respondent set forth in section III,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to
trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V THE REMEDY
As Respondent has been found to have engaged in certain
unfair labor practices , I shall recommend that it be ordered
to cease and desist therefrom and to take specific affirmative
action , as set forth below , designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act. Since Respondent has cancelled its insurance
plan or program for retired employees , the Recommended
Order will provide that Respondent , upon request of the
Union, (a) rescind such cancellation which it unilaterally
instituted , and (b) bargain with the Union regarding any
modification of such plan This conforms with the Board's
Order in Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, 177 NLRB No.
114 While this may require Respondent to restore the
status quo for retirees who enjoyed such benefits , it does
not direct Respondent to carry such insurance with any
particular insurance company . The selection of such insur-
ance company will be left to the bargaining process.
Retirees affected by the foregoing unilateral action adopt-
ed by Respondent may have suffered loss by reason thereof
Accordingly, it will be further recommended that Respond-
ent make whole such persons for any losses they may
have suffered from such action, with interest thereon at
6 percent per annum . Cf Ogle Protection Service, Inc.,
149 NLRB 545, 547, Roesch Transportation Company, Inc.,
157 NLRB 441, 442 And, of course, it will be recommended
that Respondent post appropriate notices.
The conduct of Respondent in my opinion cannot be
characterized as depicting a general hostility to the Act,
and I so find It follows, and I find, that an Order is
appropriate which is limited to enjoining only the activities
found herein to be unfair labor practices Relief broader
in scope is not warranted on the facts divulged by the
record
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
the entire record in this case , I make the following.
514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local 802 is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2 Respondent is an employer within the meaning of
Section 2(2), and is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7), of the Act.
3. A unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act
consists of
All production and maintenance employees employed
by Respondent at its Lansing, Michigan, plant, exclud-
ing office clerical employees, technical employees, and
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
4. Since November 9, 1962, Local 802 has been the
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the
said appropriate unit , and Respondent since that time has
been under a statutory obligation to recognize and bargain
with Local 802 as such representative concerning rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions
of employment
5. Insurance benefits received by retirees who were
employed in said appropriate unit at the time of their
retirement are subjects of mandatory bargaining between
Local 802 and Respondent
6 By unilaterally abolishing or modifying the insurance
benefits described in the preceding paragraph for its retirees,
without consulting or bargaining with Local 802 thereon,
Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the
Act.
7 The aforesaid unfair labor practices effect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
8 Retirees Brewer and Stockstill were not employed
in the above-mentioned appropriate unit, so that Respondent
did not commit any unfair labor practice in unilaterally
abrogating or modifying the insurance benefits received
by them as retirees, without consulting or bargaining with
Local 802 thereon.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this
case, I recommend that the Board enter an Order enjoining
Respondent, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
to:
1 Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Local 802 with
respect to benefits for retired employees.
(b) Unilaterally abolishing or modifying insurance plans
for retired employees without first negotiating and bargain-
ing collectively in good faith with Local 802 thereon.
2 Take the following affirmative action designed to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request of Local 802, rescind any cancellation
or modification which Respondent unilaterally instituted
of the insurance plans for retired employees, and bargain
collectively with said Union regarding any adjustments
or abrogation of such plan.
(b) Make whole persons who retired from the above-
mentioned appropriate unit for any losses they may have
suffered by reason of Respondent's unilateral cancellation
of their insurance benefits, with interest thereon at 6 percent
per annum.
(c) Mail a copy of the attached notice marked
"Appendix"' to each retired employee formerly working
in said appropriate unit and post copies thereof in its
plant at Lansing, Michigan Copies of said notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after
being signed by Respondent's representative thereunto duly
authorized, shall be posted immediately upon receipt thereof,
and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter,
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily displayed. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for Region 7, in writing,
within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.2
It is further recommended that the complaint be dismissed
insofar as it applies to retirees, such as Brewer and Stockstill,
who were not employed in the appropriate unit.
' In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec 102 46
of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board,
the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and Recommended Order
herein shall, as provided in Sec 102 48 of said Rules and Regulations,
be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions, and
order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes
in the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a judgment of
a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading
"Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall be
changed to read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States
Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations
Board."
' In the event this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify said Regional Director,
in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain with Shopmen's
Local Union No. 802, International Association of
Bridge, Structural, and Ornamental Iron Workers.
AFL-CIO, with respect to retirement benefits of
employees already retired from the bargaining unit
described below
WE WILL NOT unilaterally cancel or institute adjust-
ments in insurance plans for employees retired from
said unit without first negotiating in good faith with
the above-named Union concerning such cancellation
or adjustments
WE WILL, upon request of the above-named Union,
rescind any cancellation or adjustments made in the
PLANET CORPORATION
insurance plans for employees retired from said unit
which we unilaterally instituted, and we will bargain
collectively with the above-named Union with respect
to any cancellation or adjustments in such insurance
plans The bargaining unit is
All production and maintenance employees
employed by us, excluding office clerical employ-
ees, technical employees, and guards and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act
WE WILL reimburse employees retired from said
unit for any losses they may have suffered by reason
of our unilateral cancellation of their insurance benefits,
with interest thereon at the rate of 6 percent per
annum.
Dated By
515
PLANET CORPORATION
(Employer)
(Representative)
(Title)
This is an official notice and must not be defaced by
anyone.
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
Any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions may be directed to the Board's Office, 500
Book Building, 1249 Washington Boulevard, Detroit, Michi-
gan 48226, Telephone 313-226-3244.