Republic Die & Tool Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 19, 2004

343 N.L.R.B. 683 (N.L.R.B. 2004)

REPUBLIC DIE & TOOL CO.
343 NLRB No. 78
683
Republic Die and Tool Company and International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW), AFL–CIO, New West Side Local 174.
Case 7–CA–46194
November 19, 2004
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS LIEBMAN, SCHAUMBER, AND MEISBURG
On February 6, 2004, Administrative Law Ira Sandron
issued the attached decision. The General Counsel filed
exceptions and a supporting brief.1
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions as
modified, and to adopt the recommended Order.
AMENDED CONCLUSION OF LAW
Substitute the following for Conclusion of Law 3.
“3. By repudiating the January 16, 2000, to January 16,
2004 collective-bargaining agreement, the Respondent
has failed and refused to bargain collectively, within the
meaning of Section 8(d), and has thereby engaged in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
“4. By failing and refusing to provide the Union, upon its
requests, with information relevant to its averred economic
inability to comply with the wage and fringe benefits provi-
sions of that agreement, Respondent has thereby engaged in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.”
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board adopts the rec-
ommended Order of the administrative law judge and
orders that the Respondent, Republic Die and Tool Com-
pany, Belleville, Michigan, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the
Order.

1 The General Counsel excepts to the judge’s failure to specifically note
that Respondent has failed and refused to bargain with the Union within
the meaning of Sec. 8(d) in finding that it violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1).
We have amended the Conclusions of Law accordingly. See Yorkaire
Inc., 297 NLRB 401 fn. 1 (1989). See also Victory Specialty Packag-
ing, Inc., 331 NLRB No. 139 (2000) (not reported Board volumes).
The General Counsel also excepts that the judge’s recommended Order
did not contain affirmative relief for the Respondent’s refusal to pro-
vide financial information to the Union. We do not find merit in this
exception under the circumstances of this case. Member Liebman
would grant the affirmative relief.
Sarah Karpinen and Scott R. Preston, Esqs., for the General
Counsel.
William L. Hooth, Esq. (Cox, Hodgman & Giarmarco, P.C.), of
Troy, Michigan, for the Respondent.
Carlos F. Bermudez and Daniel W. Sherrick, Esqs., of Detroit,
Michigan, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
IRA SANDRON, Administrative Law Judge. This matter arises
out of a complaint and notice of hearing (complaint) issued on
July 23, 2003,1 against Republic Die and Tool Company (the
Respondent), based on a charge and amended charge filed on
May 2 and July 9, respectively, by International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America (UAW), AFL−CIO, New West Side Local 174 (the
Union).
Pursuant to notice, I conducted a trial in Detroit, Michigan,
on October 9, at which all parties were afforded full opportu-
nity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence.
The General Counsel called Bruno Duchaine, the Union’s
president and servicing representative, and Roy Perkins, an
employee of the Respondent and the Union’s chief steward and
bargaining committee head. The Respondent called Merle
Thomas, its general manager and vice president. All parties
filed helpful posthearing briefs, which I have duly considered.
Issues
1. Whether the Respondent on April 28, by unilaterally re-
ducing wage rates and discontinuing fringe benefits mandated
by its collective-bargaining agreement with the Union, repudi-
ated that agreement in violation of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of
the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). The Respondent
admits making these changes but claims financial hardship as a
defense.2
2. Whether the Respondent, by failing and refusing to com-
ply with the Union’s requests of April 15, 22, and 23 and May
5, that the Union be allowed to audit the Respondent’s financial
records, to substantiate the Respondent’s claim of poverty,
violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1).
The Respondent’s answer admits these requests were made
but denies it failed to provide information.
3. Whether the Respondent, by failing and refusing to furnish
the Union with information it requested on May 8 and 9, re-
garding improvements at the Respondent’s facility and to new
work the Respondent had received, violated Section 8(a)(5) and
(1). Again, the Respondent’s answer admits such requests were
made but denies it failed to provide information.3
Facts
Based on the entire record, including the pleadings, testi-
mony of witnesses and my observations of their demeanor, and

1 All dates are in 2003 unless otherwise indicated.
2 See Respondent’s answer, GC Exh. 1(g).
3 The Union made an additional request for information (R. Exh. 1),
but the General Counsel has not alleged any unfair labor practices
stemming from there.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD684
documents, I make the following findings of fact. I note that
the salient facts in this matter are not in dispute and that the
testimony of Thomas was generally consistent with that of
Duchaine and Perkins.
The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act, and the
Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
At its Belleville, Michigan facility, the Respondent is en-
gaged in the manufacture and nonretail sale of tool dies for the
automotive industry. The Respondent and the Union have had
a collective-bargaining relationship going back many years.
Their most recent agreement is effective from January 16,
2000, to January 16, 2004.4 Appendix A of the agreement sets
out 25 or so employee classifications included in the bargaining
unit, which constitutes a bargaining unit appropriate for collec-
tive-bargaining purposes.
Prior to April 28, as required by the agreement, a number of
employees were paid over $20 an hour; the Respondent fully
paid premiums for medical insurance (health and dental), dis-
ability insurance, life insurance, and pension benefits, and pro-
vided holiday and vacation pay per the terms of the agreement.
In addition, as per the agreement, the Respondent paid retirees’
medical insurance premiums.5
Duchaine first became aware on April 15 that the Respon-
dent planned changes in wages and benefits. This occurred at a
regularly scheduled grievance meeting, during which Thomas
stated that due to global competition and the company’s finan-
cial problems, the Respondent had lost approximately $15 or
$16 million since 1998 and would be cutting the benefits of
both salaried and nonsalaried employees. Therefore, Thomas
stated, effective the next pay period or so, the owner would
eliminate its payment of various insurance premiums and
would cut the wage rate for employees making over $20 an
hour to $20 hour, with one employee making slightly over $20
to be cut to $17.
Duchaine responded that there was a proper way to do things
and that the Union wanted an opportunity to audit the Respon-
dent’s books to verify the claim of financial hardship. He ex-
plained that it was standard for the Union’s research department
to assign an auditor. If that auditor verified the Respondent had
financial problems, Duchaine would hold a vote of the mem-
bership on whether the Union should enter into negotiations for
concessions. Thomas stated he did not believe the owner
would allow the books to be opened up for an audit but that he
would see about obtaining documentation from the Respon-
dent’s accountant.
Duchaine sent Thomas a letter dated April 15, reiterating the
Union’s request for an audit of the Respondent’s books to sub-
stantiate the Respondent’s claim of poverty.6
Thomas responded by letter dated April 17, stating that due
to the global nature of the market, the Respondent would make

4 GC Exh. 2.
5 See R. Exhs. 2 and 3.
6 GC Exh. 3.
reductions in pay rate and eliminate contractual fringe benefits
effective April 28 to avoid shutdown.7
Duchaine responded by letter dated April 22, renewing the
Union’s request to have a union auditor verify the Respondent’s
financial crisis.8
Duchaine had hand delivered a letter dated April 23 to Tho-
mas, stating that Duchaine had been advised by his superiors
that a membership vote on concessions could not be held until a
union auditor validated the Respondent’s claims of financial
hardship.9
The Respondent’s accountant, John Sposito, by letter of
April 23 to Duchaine, provided the following information:
The cumulative net operating losses for Republic Die and
Tool Company for the five fiscal years 1998 through 2002
were $16,704,820.00. This was determined from the re-
viewed financial statements and the information presented in
the corporation’s Federal Income Tax Returns for those
years.10
The Union received nothing else in writing from the Re-
spondent prior to April 28 to support the Respondent’s claim of
financial hardship.
By letters dated April 24, the Respondent advised employees
of the cuts in wages and elimination of fringe benefits, effective
April 28, and retirees of the cessation of their health insurance
benefits, effective May 1.11
The reductions in wages and elimination of fringe benefits
announced by Thomas at the April 15 meeting were imple-
mented on April 28. Thus, the maximum wage rate became $20
an hour, with one employee cut from slightly over $20 to $17 an
hour; the Respondent ceased paying any premiums for medical
insurance, disability, life insurance, and pension benefits; and
ceased paying vacation and holiday pay.12 On May 1, the Re-
spondent ceased paying retirees’ medical insurance premiums.13
After April 28, employees were given the option of paying on
their own for insurance benefits, with the Respondent making
deductions from their paychecks and forwarding the payments.
Overtime pay was changed 2 to 3 weeks after April 28.
Whereas previously, there were provisions for double time pay
for overtime and overtime was computed on a daily basis, there-
after, all overtime was at time-and-a-half and came into play
only after 40 hours in a week.
On April 28, after being informed that the Respondent had
implemented the wage cuts and elimination of fringe benefits,
Duchaine authorized Perkins to file a grievance. A grievance
was in fact filed that day, seeking the following remedy:

7 GC Exh. 4, to which was attached GC Exh. 5.
8 GC Exh. 6.
9 GC Exh. 8. Duchaine had previously scheduled an April 23 vote
on concessions
10 GC Exh. 9.
11 GC Exhs. 19 and 20, respectively.
12 See R. Exhs. 2 and 3. Perkins testified without controversion that
Jimmy Watts was the employee who made slightly over $20 an hour
before April 28 and was reduced to $17. For some reason, Watts is not
listed in these exhibits.
13 Id.
REPUBLIC DIE & TOOL CO. 685
Company to restore all contractual wages and benefits to all
affected employees. Co. to reimburse all lost wages and
benefits to all affected employees. Co. to restore and reim-
burse lost benefits to all affected retired employees. Co. to
abide by the CBA. Co. to case and desist from this flagrant
violation of the CBA.14
Duchaine sent Thomas two letters dated May 5. One re-
sponded that Sposito’s letter was insufficient and renewed the
Union’s request for an audit by its auditing department.15 The
other notified Thomas of the above grievance.16
During this period, Duchaine received information that the
Respondent was accepting quotes to perform improvements,
such as driveway expansion, at its facility, and had the intention
of building an addition. Because he considered this relevant to
the Respondent’s claim of financial hardship, Duchaine sent
Thomas a letter dated May 8, asking where the money would
come from and whether the improvements would generate
more work.17 At a later meeting in May, Thomas told
Duchaine that the Respondent had looked into expanding the
driveway but had decided not to go forward with it. Attorney
Hooth later told Duchaine and Perkins that there would be no
large-scale additions or improvements. Duchaine made no
further inquiries on the subject.
Also during this period, Duchaine heard that the Respondent
was receiving new work. Again, because he considered this
relevant to the Respondent’s hardship claim, Duchaine, by
letter dated May 9, requested the following information pertain-
ing to the new work:18
1. Expected gross profits.
2. Whether the profits would generate enough money
to reinstate employees’ benefits and wages.
3. Whether the work would require recalling and/or
hiring skilled trades workers.
4. Whether the work would require hiring additional
nonskilled workers.
Although his recollection was imprecise, Duchaine testified
that he received information over the telephone from Hooth
regarding items 3 and 4, but not items 1 and 2. Thus, Hooth
provided information about the quantity of parts involved and
stated that the Respondent would not have the need to hire any
new employees, skilled or unskilled. However, Duchaine re-

14 GC Exh. 12. A meeting was held on the grievance a week or two
later, at which Duchaine stated that he was going to forward it to arbi-
tration. In light of the Board’s encouragement of arbitration to resolve
disputes that entail alleged violations both of contract and of the Act, in
appropriate situations, e.g., Caritas Good Samaritan Medical Center,
340 NLRB No. 6 (2003), on November 19, I requested supplemental
briefs on whether the allegations in the complaint concerning unilateral
changes should be deferred to the arbitration process. The Respondent
responded that at the arbitration hearing held on December 18, it con-
tended that the arbitrator should defer to my decision in this matter.
The General Counsel also responded, agreeing that deferral to arbitra-
tion is not appropriate.
15 GC Exh. 10.
16 GC Exh. 11.
17 GC Exh. 13.
18 GC Exh. 14.
ceived nothing concerning the financial ramifications of this
new work. Thomas testified, somewhat vaguely, that there was
no way to predict the resulting profits, but it is undisputed that
the Respondent made no effort to provide the Union with any
kind of estimates or to furnish the Union with detailed reasons
why no such estimates could be made.
Hooth, with a letter dated June 2, sent Duchaine a report
from the Respondent’s accounting firm to the Respondent’s
board of directors, which compiled balance sheets as of August
31, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, and included statements
of income—operations for each year, as well as supplementary
information contained in the schedules of cost of sales and
selling and administrative expenses.19 The report contained the
caveat,
A compilation is limited to presenting in the form of
financial statements and supplementary schedules infor-
mation that is the representation of management. We have
not audited or reviewed the accompanying financial state-
ments and supplementary schedules and, accordingly, do
not express an opinion or any other form of assurance on
them.
Management has elected to omit substantially all of the
disclosures and the statements of cash flows required by
generally accepted accounting principles. If the omitted
disclosures and statements of cash flows were included in
the financial statements, they might influence the user’s
conclusions about the Company’s financial position, re-
sults of operations and cash flows.
Thomas conceded that this was the only written information
provided to the Union regarding the Respondent’s financial
condition.20
By telefaxes of June 13, Duchaine advised Hooth and Tho-
mas that he had received Hooth’s letter and the information
from the Respondent’s accountants but that additional informa-
tion was requested to justify the Company’s plea of poverty.21
He transmitted with the faxes a letter from the UAW research
department, along with its standard detailed data request to
companies that plead poverty to justify unilateral changes.22
The request lists 18 types of documents the Union considers
relevant. Regarding financial statements, item 4 states that
audited financial statements for the past 3 years should include,
[C]omplete balance sheets, income statements, and statements
of cash flows together with footnotes and detailed supporting
scheduled [sic]. Supporting schedules should include cost of
goods sold, including breakdowns of materials, costs, manu-
facturing overhead/burden, labor costs and supervisory and
other nonlabor wages and benefits; and selling, general and
administrative expenses, including details on management
salaries and benefits. The above statements should be certi-
fied by an independent, outside CPA.

19 GC Exh. 15.
20 Tr. 122.
21 GC Exhs. 17 and 18.
22 GC Exh. 16.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD686
Legal Analysis and Conclusions
Unilateral Changes in Wages and Fringe Benefits and Repu-
diation of Contract
As the Board stated in Fort Pierce Jai-Alai, 310 NLRB 862
(1993), “It is well established that Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and
Section 8(d) of the Act prohibit an employer that is a party to
an existing collective-bargaining agreement from modifying the
terms and conditions of employment established by the agree-
ment without obtaining the consent of the union.” Moreover, it
is equally well settled that an employer’s claim of financial
inability to make payments required by the contract, even if
proven, is not a valid defense. Id.; Mac Plastics, 314 NLRB
163 (1994); Tammy Sportswear Corp., 302 NLRB 860 (1991).
An employer’s unilateral change in employee wage rates
during the term of a contract is deemed more than a mere
breach of contract; rather, it “amounts, as a practical matter, to
the striking of a death blow to the contract as a whole, and is
thus, in reality, a basic repudiation of the bargaining relation-
ship.” Oak Cliff-Golman Baking Co., 207 NLRB 1063, 1064
(1973), enfd. mem. 505 F.2d 1302 (5th Cir. 1974), cert. denied
423 U.S. 826 (1975); see also Wightman Center for Nursing &
Rehabilitation, 301 NLRB 573, 575 (1991). Similarly, the
Board has found that an employer’s failure and refusal to make
payments for severance pay, vacation pay, and health insurance
premiums constitutes repudiation of a contract. Victory Spe-
cialty Packing, Inc., 331 NLRB No. 139 (2000) (not reported in
Board volumes). These cases appropriately recognize the nor-
mally fundamental importance to employees of wage and fringe
benefit provisions; an employer’s failure and refusal to comply
therewith effectively guts the agreement of its meaningfulness
to employees.
There is no question in this case that, without the consent of
the Union or affording it an opportunity to bargain, the Re-
spondent on April 28 unilaterally reduced wage rates for certain
unit employees and eliminated fringe benefits for all employ-
ees; and additionally, on May 1, eliminated the payment of
health insurance premiums for retirees.
Based on the applicable law, as set forth above, I find that
this conduct effectively constituted a repudiation of the collec-
tive-bargaining agreement and a violation of Section 8(a)5) and
(1) of the Act. Inasmuch as repudiation of an agreement is
more egregious than making unilateral changes, I find the latter
violation encompassed by my finding of repudiation. See Vic-
tory Specialty Packaging, Inc., supra.
The Respondent’s Failure and Refusal to Provide Information
An employer’s obligation to bargain in good faith includes
the obligation to disclose to the employees’ collective-
bargaining representative information relevant and necessary to
its role as bargaining agent, including enforcing provisions of a
collective-bargaining agreement and processing grievances.
NLRB v. Acme Industrial. Co., 385 U.S. 432 (1967); General
Motors v. NLRB, 700 F.2d 1083 (6th Cir. 1983); American
Signature, Inc., 334 NLRB 880, 885 (2001). The standard for
determining what information is “relevant and necessary” is
broadly construed, to encompass information that will probably
be relevant and of use to the union in carrying out its statutory
duties and responsibilities. Acme Industrial, supra at 437–438;
Globe Business Furniture, Inc., 889 F.2d 1087 (6th Cir. 1989).
Information related to wages and other terms and conditions of
employment, such a pensions and medical benefits, is presump-
tively relevant and must be furnished upon request. Interna-
tional Protective Services, Inc., 339 NLRB 541, 546 (2003);
Deadline Express, 313 NLRB 1244 (1994).
In the context of an employer’s asserted inability to pay em-
ployees remuneration, a union is entitled to be provided infor-
mation establishing proof that such assertion is accurate. NLRB
v. Truitt Mfg. Co., 351 U.S. 149, 152−153 (1956). The Union
here requested information by means of conducting an audit of
the Respondent’s financial records, at all times stating that if
the audit validated the Respondent’s claim of financial hard-
ship, the Union would conduct a vote among unit employees of
whether to engage in concession bargaining.
The Union’s May 8 and 9 requests for information, regarding
improvements to the facility and new work, respectively, were
made because the Union considered such information relevant
to the Respondent’s claim of financial hardship. I agree.
Accordingly, I conclude that the Union’s requests for an au-
dit of the Respondent’s records and for information pertaining
to facility improvements and new work were relevant and nec-
essary to the Union’s performance of its duties as collective-
bargaining representative. Therefore, the Respondent was
obliged to provide the requested information.
The Respondent denies that it failed to provide the Union
with the information it requested. I will first address the Re-
spondent’s provision of information in response to the Union’s
requests of April 15, 22, and 23, and May 5 to have a represen-
tative of the Union audit the Respondent’s books to substantiate
the claim of financial hardship justifying cuts in wages and
elimination of fringe benefits.
The Respondent never allowed the Union direct access to its
books at any time. The Respondent twice provided the Union
with written information. The first was in the form of the letter
of April 23 from its accountant, simply stating in one paragraph
the bare conclusion that the Respondent’s cumulative net oper-
ating losses for the 5 fiscal years 1998 through 2002 were ap-
proximately $16.7 million dollars, determined from financial
statements and the information presented in the Respondent’s
Federal income tax returns.
The second, provided in early June, was a report from the
Respondent’s accountants to the Respondent’s board of direc-
tors, which compiled balance sheets as of August 31 for the
years 1998 through 2002, and included statements of income –
operations for each year, as well as supplementary information
contained in the schedules of cost of sales and selling and ad-
ministrative expenses. The reliability of the report as evidence
of the Respondent’s financial situation was seriously under-
mined by its emphatic and almost apologetic caveat, stressing
that the report was based solely on representations of manage-
ment, that management had “elected to omit substantially all of
the disclosures and the statements of cash flows required by
generally accepted accounting principles,” and that such omit-
ted disclosures and statements of cash flow could make a dif-
ference in the report’s conclusions.
REPUBLIC DIE & TOOL CO. 687
I conclude that a reasonable person would not have been sat-
isfied that the April 23 letter and the report constituted reliable
evidence substantiating the Respondent’s claim of financial
hardship. Indeed, the caveat to the report seems to raise the
suspicion that management withheld information from its ac-
countants but, in any event, had chosen not to comply with
established accounting principles.
Therefore, I further conclude that the Respondent unlawfully
failed to comply with the Union’s requests of April 15, 22, and
23, and May 15, to furnish information through opening its
books to a union auditor, and otherwise failed to provide rele-
vant and necessary information, in connection with its claimed
financial inability to pay contractual wages and fringe bene-
fits.23
As to the May 8 request for information relating to physical
improvements at the Respondent’s facility, Thomas told
Duchaine at a meeting later in May that the Respondent had
looked into expanding the driveway but had decided not to go
forward with it. Attorney Hooth later told Duchaine and Per-
kins that there would be no large-scale additions or improve-
ments and, significantly, Duchaine was apparently satisfied
with those responses, because he made no further inquiries on
the subject. There is no requirement that information be pro-
vided in written form, and I therefore conclude that the General
Counsel has not sustained allegation 19 of the complaint.
Regarding the May 9 request for information pertaining to
new work obtained by the Respondent, Duchaine set out four
questions. The first two related to the profits anticipated from
the work, and the second two to the impact on hiring needs.
Duchaine conceded that he received information as to the latter
questions, but he received nothing concerning the first two.
Although Thomas testified it was hard to predict profits, the
Respondent never provided the Union with estimated profits, a
range of anticipated profits, or a detailed explanation of why it
could not make any estimates. I find it difficult to believe that
the Respondent would have taken on new work without having
some idea of how profitable the job would be.
I conclude, therefore, that the Respondent failed to provide
the Union with requested information relating to the financial
ramifications of the new work. Accordingly, I sustain allega-
tion 20 of the complaint.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By repudiating the January 16, 2000 to January 16, 2004
collective-bargaining agreement, and by failing and refusing to
provide the Union, upon its requests, with information relevant
to its averred economic inability to comply with the wage and
fringe benefits provisions of that agreement, the Respondent
has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce

23 In light of this conclusion, I need not address whether the Respon-
dent lawfully could have placed conditions on the audit or satisfied its
legal obligation to furnish the information in an alternative manner.
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) and Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, I find that it must be ordered to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
Having unlawfully failed to pay wages and fringe benefits to
employees and retired employees, under the terms of the Janu-
ary 16, 2000 to January 16, 2004 collective−bargaining agree-
ment, the Respondent must restore the wages and fringe bene-
fits provided in the agreement, and make employees and retired
employees whole by reimbursing them for any expenses that
have resulted from such unlawful conduct, as set forth in Kraft
Plumbing & Heating, 252 NLRB 891 fn. 2 (1980), enfd. 444
F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1981), with interest as prescribed in New
Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended24
ORDER
The Respondent, Republic Die and Tool Company, Belle-
ville, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Repudiating the January 16, 2000 to January 16, 2004
collective-bargaining agreement with International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW), AFL–CIO, New West Side Local
174 (the Union), by failing to pay contractually required wages
and fringe benefits.
(b) Failing and refusing to provide to the Union, upon its re-
quest, information that is relevant and necessary to the Union’s
role as bargaining agent.
(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) Make the contractually required wages and fringe bene-
fits with interest as prescribed in the remedy section of this
decision.
(b) Make all unit employees and retired employees whole,
with interest as set forth in the remedy section of this decision,
for any losses suffered as a result of the failure and refusal to
pay contractually required wages and fringe benefits.
(c) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such addi-
tional time as the Regional Director may allow for good cause
shown, provide at a reasonable place designated by the Board
or its agents, all payroll records, social security payment re-
cords, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other
records, including an electronic copy of such records if stored

24 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
adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed
waived for all purposes.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD688
in electronic form, necessary to analyze the amount of backpay
due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post as its fa-
cility in Belleville, Michigan, copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”25 Copies of the notice, on forms provided
by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being signed by the
Respondent's authorized representative, shall be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60
consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places
where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In
the event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, the
Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility in-
volved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and
mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current em-
ployees and former employees employed by the Respondent at
any time since April 15, 2003. The Respondent shall also,
within 14 days after service by the Region, mail a copy of the
notice to all retired employees for whom it was paying health
insurance benefits prior to May 1, 2003. The notice shall be
mailed to the last known address of each of such retired em-
ployees after being signed by the Respondent’s authorized rep-
resentative.
(e) 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.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed inso-
far as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically found.
Dated, Washington, D.C. February 6, 2004

25 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 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 International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW), AFL–CIO, New West Side Local
174 (the Union), by repudiating the January 16, 2000 to Janu-
ary 16, 2004 collective-bargaining agreement, through failing
to pay you contractually required wages and fringe benefits.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to provide the Union, upon its
request, information that is necessary and relevant to the Un-
ion’s role as your bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL make the contractually required wages and fringe
benefits on behalf of employees and retired employees covered
by the collective-bargaining agreement.
WE WILL make all unit employees and retired employees
whole, with interest, for any losses suffered as a result of our
failure and refusal to pay contractually required wages and
fringe benefits.
REPUBLIC DIE AND TOOL COMPANY