Richards & Conover Steel Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 10, 2000

331 N.L.R.B. 123 (N.L.R.B. 2000)

331 NLRB No. 123
1
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.
Richards and Conover Steel Company and United
Steel Workers of America, AFL–CIO. Cases 17–
CA–20359, 17–CA–20468, and 17–CA–20468–2
August 10, 2000
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS HURTGEN
AND BRAME
Upon charges and amended charges filed by the Union
on October 7, and December 20, 1999, January 13, Janu-
ary 18, and February 17, 2000, the General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint
on January 18, 2000, in Case 17–CA–20359, and a con-
solidated complaint on March 30, 2000, in Cases 17–
CA–20359, 17–CA–20468, and 17–CA–20468–2,
against Richards and Conover Steel Company, the Re-
spondent, alleging that it has violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(5) of the National Labor Relations Act. On January 27,
2000, the Respondent filed an answer to the original
complaint in Case 17–CA–20359.
On February 18, 2000, the Honorable Frank W.
Kroger, Bankruptcy Judge in the United States Bank-
ruptcy Court of the Western District of Missouri, issued
an Order Granting Emergency Motion for Appointment
of Interim Trustee Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 303(g) in the
matter of Richards and Conover Steel Company, Case
00–40521–1. On February 22, 2000, Judge Kroger is-
sued an Order for Relief, ordering that an order for relief
under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code be entered in
the case.
On May 30, 2000, the General Counsel filed a Motion
for Summary Judgment with the Board. On June 1,
2000, the Board issued an order transferring the proceed-
ing to the Board and a Notice to Show Cause why the
motion should not be granted. The Respondent filed no
response. The allegations in the motion are therefore
undisputed.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment
Sections 102.20 and 102.21 of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations provide that the allegations in the complaint
shall be deemed admitted if an answer is not filed within
14 days from service of the complaint, unless good cause
is shown. In addition, the complaint and consolidated
complaint affirmatively note that unless an answer is
filed within 14 days of service, all the allegations in the
complaint and consolidated complaint will be considered
admitted.
By letters dated May 10 and 23, 2000, the Chapter 7
Bankruptcy Trustee for the Respondent, Robert A.
Pummill, informed the General Counsel that he con-
fessed judgment in the case, that he was consenting to
the entry of a judgment pursuant to the consolidated
complaint, and that he wished to withdraw the answer
previously filed by the Respondent on January 27, 2000,
in response to the original complaint in Case 17CA-
20359. Such a withdrawal of an answer has the same
effect as a failure to file an answer, i.e., the allegations in
the consolidated complaint must be considered to be
true.1
Accordingly, based on the withdrawal of the Respon-
dent’s answer, and the Bankruptcy Trustee’s consent to
the entry of a judgment pursuant to the consolidated
complaint, we grant the General Counsel’s Motion for
Summary Judgment.
On the entire record, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
At all material times, the Respondent, a corporation,
with an office and place of business in Kansas City, Mis-
souri, has been engaged in the fabrication, processing,
and distribution of steel and steel products. During the
12-month period ending December 31, 1999, the Re-
spondent, in conducting its business operations, pur-
chased and received at its facilities goods valued in ex-
cess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of
Missouri. During the 12-month period ending December
31, 1999, the Respondent, in conducting its business
operations, sold and shipped from its facilities goods
valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the
State of Missouri. We find that the Respondent is an
employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of
Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act and that the Union is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
All production and maintenance employees at the Re-
spondent’s steel warehouse, 6333 St. John Avenue, Kan-
sas City, Missouri, 64123, and the rolling division, 2193
Manchester Trafficway, Kansas City, Missouri, 64123,
excluding the manager, supervisory personnel, office
employees, and truckdrivers (the unit), constitute a unit
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
For more than 20 years, the Union has been the desig-
nated exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
the unit and at all material times the Union has been rec-

1 See Maslin Transport, 274 NLRB 529 (1985). Although the mo-
tion notes that the Respondent is in bankruptcy, it is well established
that the institution of bankruptcy proceedings does not deprive the
Board of jurisdiction or authority to entertain and process an unfair
labor practice case to its final disposition. Phoenix Co., 274 NLRB 995
(1985). Board proceedings fall within the exception to the automatic
stay provisions for proceedings by a governmental unit to enforce its
police or regulatory powers. See id., and cases cited therein.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2
ognized as the representative by the Respondent. This
recognition has been embodied in successive collective-
bargaining agreements, the most recent of which is effec-
tive from April 1, 1999, to April 1, 2002.
At all material times, based on Section 9(a) of the Act,
the Union has been the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the unit.
On or about September 17, 1999, the Respondent laid
off its employee Chester Williams. The Respondent en-
gaged in this conduct because Chester Williams engaged
in union and protected concerted activities and to dis-
courage employees from engaging in these activities.
On or about July 23, 1999, the Union requested that
the Respondent bargain collectively about the effects on
unit employees of the sale or potential sale of the Re-
spondent’s rolling division and steel warehouse.
Since on or about July 23, 1999, the Respondent failed
to give the Union timely notice of the sale of its rolling
division on or about August 17, 1999, and the layoff of
certain unit employees; the Respondent failed to give
timely notice to the Union of the layoff of certain unit
employees in or about Septemb er 1999, and about De-
cember 7, 1999, and the sale or closure of its steel ware-
house on or about December 7, 1999.
Since on or about July 23, 1999, the Respondent has
failed and refused to bargain collectively with the Union
concerning the subjects set forth above. These subjects
relate to the wages, hours, and other terms and conditions
of employment of the unit, and are mandatory subjects
for the purposes of collective bargaining.
Since on or about August 20, 1999, the Respondent
has failed to continue in effect all the terms and condi-
tions of the 1999–2002 collective-bargaining agreement
by selecting the following senior employees for layoff
from the rolling division: Richard Calvert, Leon John-
son, Raymond Mooney, James Parker, and James Pat-
rick; and by refusing to permit these employees to bump
less senior employees in the warehouse, the Respondent
has abrogated material portions of article VI of the
agreement.
Since on or about August 20, 1999, the Respondent
has failed to continue in effect all the terms and condi-
tions of the 1999–2002 agreement by refusing to pay
vacation pay and severance pay to unit employees, and
has thereby abrogated material portions of articles XI and
XVII of the agreement.
Since on or about September 15, 1999, the Respondent
has failed to continue in effect all the terms and condi-
tions of the 1999–2002 agreement by refusing to permit
the Union to submit to arbitration grievances concerning
the Respondent’s actions regarding the layoff of employ-
ees Richard Calvert, Leon Johnson, Raymond Mooney,
James Parker, and James Patrick, and the refusal to let
these employees bump less senior employees in the
warehouse, and the Respondent has thereby abrogated
material portions of article XIII of the agreement.
Since on or about September 17, 1999, the Respondent
has failed to continue in effect all the terms and condi-
tions of the 1999–2002 agreement by selecting the fol-
lowing senior employees for layoff from the steel ware-
house: James Bryg, George Delarber, Hubert Miles,
Marvin Rowlett, Paul Sneed, and Chester Williams; and
by refusing to permit these employees to bump less sen-
ior employees in the warehouse, the Respondent has
thereby abrogated material portions of article VI of the
agreement.
Since on or about October 7, 1999, the Respondent has
failed to continue in effect all the terms and conditions of
the 1999–2002 agreement by refusing to permit the Un-
ion to submit to arbitration grievances concerning the
Respondent’s actions regarding the layoff of employees
James Bryg, George Delarber, Hubert Miles, Marvin
Rowlett, Paul Sneed, and Chester Williams, and the re-
fusal to let these employees bump less senior employees
in the warehouse, and the Respondent has thereby abro-
gated material portions of article XIII of the agreement.
Since on or about October 1, 1999, the Respondent has
failed to continue in effect all the terms and conditions of
the 1999–2002 agreement by refusing to grant to unit
employees wage increases set forth in the agreement, and
the Respondent has thereby abrogated material portions
of article IX of the agreement.
In or around late December 1999, the Respondent
failed to continue in effect all the terms and conditions of
the 1999–2002 agreement by not paying to unit employ-
ees the Christmas bonuses set forth in the agreement, and
the Respondent has thereby abrogated material portions
of article XI of the agreement.
The Respondent engaged in the conduct described
above without the Union’s consent.
The terms and conditions of employment described
above are mandatory subjects for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining.
On or about November 10, 1999, the Union, by letter,
requested that the Respondent furnish the Union with
“copies of all documents regarding the purchase/sales
agreement of the rolling division, along with any sepa-
rate conditions and/or understandings written or verbal,
reached between the seller and the buyer. In addition,
this request should include a copy of any and all personal
notes, either printed or handwritten, made or taken by or
on behalf of Respondent in connection with the sale of
the rolling division.”
The information requested by the Union is necessary
for, and relevant to, the Union’s performance of its duties
as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
the unit.
Since on or about November 10, 1999, the Respondent
has failed and refused to furnish the Union with the in-
formation requested.
RICHARDS & CONOVER STEEL CO. 3
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By laying off employee Chester Williams because
he engaged in union and protected concerted activities,
the Respondent has been interfering with, restraining,
and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, has discrimi-
nated in regard to hire or tenure or terms or conditions of
employment of its employees, thereby discouraging
membership in a labor organization, and has therefore
engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act.
2. In addition, by failing (1) to bargain collectively
with the Union about the effects on the unit employees of
the sale of the Respondent’s rolling division and steel
warehouse; (2) to give timely notice to the Union of the
sale of the Respondent’s rolling division on or about Au-
gust 17, 1999, and the layoff of certain unit employees,
the layoff of certain unit employees in or about Septem-
ber 1999 and about December 7, 1999, and the sale or
closure of its steel warehouse on or about December 7,
1999; (3) to continue in effect all the terms and condi-
tions of the 1999–2002 collective-bargaining agreement,
without the Union’s consent, by laying off certain em-
ployees, refusing to allow those employees to bump less
senior employees, refusing to permit the Union to submit
to arbitration grievances concerning these actions, and
refusing to pay vacation and severance pay, wage in-
creases and Christmas bonus to unit employees pursuant
to the 1999–2002 collective-bargaining agreement; and
(4) to provide the Union with requested information that
is necessary and relevant to the Union’s performance of
its duties, the Respondent has been failing and refusing
to bargain collectively and in good faith with the exclu-
sive collective-bargaining representative of its employees
within the meaning of Section 8(d) of the Act, and has
thereby engaged in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, having
found that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) by laying off employee Chester Williams, we
shall order the Respondent to offer the discriminatee full
reinstatement to his former job, or, if that job no longer
exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without
prejudice to his seniority or any other rights or privileges
previously enjoyed, and to make him whole for any loss
of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the
discrimination against him. Backpay shall be computed
in accordance with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289
(1950), with interest as prescribed in New Horizons for
the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987). The Respondent
shall also be required to expunge from its files any and
all references to the unlawful layoff, and to notify the
discriminatee in writing that this has been done.
In addition, having found that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by failing and refusing since July
23, 1999, to bargain collectively with the Union about
the effects on the unit employees of the sale of the Re-
spondent’s rolling division and steel warehouse, to give
timely notice to the Union of the sale of the Respon-
dent’s rolling division on or about August 17, 1999, and
the layoff of certain unit employees, the layoff of certain
unit employees in or about September 1999 and about
December 7, 1999, and the sale or closure of its steel
warehouse on or about December 7, 1999, we shall order
the Respondent to, on request, bargain with the Union
concerning the effects of its decision to sell its business.
Further, we shall accompany our bargaining order with
a limited backpay requirement designed both to make
whole the employees for losses they may have suffered
as a result of the failure to bargain about such effects and
to recreate in some practicable manner a situation in
which the parties’ bargaining position is not entirely de-
void of economic consequences for the Respondent.
Meaningful bargaining cannot be assured until some
measure of economic strength is restored to the Union.
A bargaining order alone, therefore, cannot serve as an
adequate remedy for the unfair labor practices commit-
ted. We shall, accordingly, order the Respondent to pay
backpay to the terminated employees in a manner similar
to that required in Transmarine Navigation Corp., 170
NLRB 389 (1968).2 If employees have been terminated
as a result of the sale, backpay shall be computed in ac-
cordance with F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289
(1950), with interest as prescribed in New Horizons for
the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
In addition, having found that the Respondent has vio-
lated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by failing to con-
tinue in effect all the terms and conditions of the 1999–
2002 collective-bargaining agreement, without the Un-
ion’s consent, by (1) selecting the following senior em-
ployees for layoff from the rolling division: Richard
Calvert, Leon Johnson, Raymond Mooney, James Parker,

2 See also, Live Oak Skilled Care & Manor, 300 NLRB 1040 (1990).
In Transmarine, the Board ordered an employer that had unlawfully
refused to bargain over the effects of its plant closure to, inter alia, pay
unit employees at their normal rate of pay beginning 5 days after the
Board’s decision until the first of four events: (1) an effects bargaining
agreement was reached; (2) a bona fide impasse in bargaining was
reached; (3) the Union failed to timely request or commence bargain-
ing; or (4) the Union failed to bargain in good faith. Id. The Board
further specified that “in no event shall this sum be less than the em-
ployees would have earned for a 2-week period at the rate of their nor-
mal wages when last in the Respondent’s employ.” Id.
As the complaint and motion do not allege the actual impact, if any,
of the sale of its business on the employees, we shall permit the Re-
spondent to contest the appropriateness of such a Transmarine backpay
remedy at the compliance stage. See Creative Woodworking, 313
NLRB 1241 (1994).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4
and James Patrick; and by refusing to permit these em-
ployees to bump less senior employees in the warehouse,
thereby abrogating material portions of article VI of the
agreement; (2) refusing to permit the Union to submit to
arbitration grievances concerning the Respondent’s ac-
tions described above regarding the layoff of employees
Richard Calvert, Leon Johnson, Raymond Mooney,
James Parker, and James Patrick, and the Respondent has
thereby abrogated material portions of article XIII of the
agreement; (3) selecting the following senior employees
for layoff from the steel warehouse: James Bryg, George
Delarber, Hubert Miles, Marvin Rowlett, Paul Sneed,
and Chester Williams; and by refusing to permit these
employees to bump less senior employees in the ware-
house, thereby abrogating material portions of article VI
of the agreement; (4) refusing to submit to arbitration
grievances concerning the Respondent’s actions de-
scribed above regarding the layoff of employees James
Bryg, George Delarber, Hubert Miles, Marvin Rowlett,
Paul Sneed, and Chester Williams, thereby abrogating
material portions of article XIII of the agreement; (5)
failing to pay vacation pay and severance pay to unit
employees, thereby abrogating articles XI and XVII of
the agreement; (6) refusing to grant to unit employees
wage increases set forth in the agreement, thereby abro-
gating material portions of article XI of the agreement;
and (7) not paying the Christmas bonuses to unit em-
ployees set forth in the agreement, thereby abrogating
material portions of article XI of the agreement, we shall
order the Respondent to honor and comply with the
terms of the 1999–2002 collective-bargaining agreement,
and to make the unit employees whole for any loss of
earnings attributable to its unlawful conduct. Backpay
shall be computed in accordance with Ogle Protection
Service, 183 NLRB 682 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th
Cir. 1971), with interest as prescribed in New Horizons
for the Retarded, supra.
Further, having found that the Respondent has failed to
provide the Union information that is relevant and neces-
sary to its role as the exclusive bargaining representative
of the unit employees, we shall order the Respondent to
furnish the Union the information requested.
Finally, in view of the fact that the Respondent’s fa-
cilities have been sold, we shall order the Respondent to
mail a copy of the attached notice to the Union and to the
last known addresses of its former employees in order to
inform them of the outcome of this proceeding.
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that the
Respondent, Richards and Conover Steel Company,
Kansas City, Missouri, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Laying off employees because they engage in un-
ion and protected concerted activity.
(b) Failing and refusing to bargain collectively with
the Union about the effects on the unit employees of the
sale of the Respondent’s rolling division and steel ware-
house.
(c) Failing to give timely notice to the Union of the
sale of the Respondent’s rolling division on or about Au-
gust 17, 1999, and the layoff of certain unit employees,
the layoff of certain unit employees in or about Septem-
ber 1999 and about December 7, 1999, and the sale or
closure of its steel warehouse on or about December 7,
1999.
(d) Failing to continue in effect all the terms and con-
ditions of the 1999–2002 collective-bargaining agree-
ment, without the Union’s consent, by selecting the fol-
lowing senior employees for layoff from the rolling divi-
sion: Richard Calvert, Leon Johnson, Raymond
Mooney, James Parker, and James Patrick; and by refus-
ing to permit these employees to bump less senior em-
ployees in the warehouse, thereby abrogating material
portions of article VI of the agreement.
(e) Failing to continue in effect all the terms and
conditions of the 1999–2002 collective-bargaining agree-
ment, without the Union’s consent, by selecting the fol-
lowing senior employees for layoff from the steel ware-
house: James Bryg, George Delarber, Hubert Miles,
Marvin Rowlett, Paul Sneed, and Chester Williams; and
refusing to permit these employees to bump less senior
employees in the warehouse, thereby abrogating material
portions of article VI of the agreement.
(f) Failing to continue in effect all the terms and condi-
tions of the 1999–2002 collective-bargaining agreement,
without the Union’s consent, by refusing to permit the
Union to submit to arbitration grievances concerning the
Respondent’s actions regarding the layoff of employees
Richard Calvert, Leon Johnson, Raymond Mooney,
James Parker, James Patrick, James Bryg, George Delar-
ber, Hubert Miles, Marvin Rowlett, Paul Sneed, and
Chester Williams, and refusing to let these employees
bump less senior employees in the warehouse, thereby
abrogating material portions of article XIII of the agree-
ment.
(g) Failing to continue in effect all the terms and con-
ditions of the 1999–2002 collective-bargaining agree-
ment, without the Union’s consent, by refusing to pay
vacation pay and severance pay to unit employees,
thereby abrogating material portions of articles XI and
XVII of the agreement.
(h) Failing to continue in effect all the terms and con-
ditions of the 1999–2002 collective-bargaining agree-
ment, without the Union’s consent, by refusing to grant
wage increases set forth in the agreement to unit employ-
ees, thereby abrogating material portions of article IX of
the agreement.
(i) Failing to continue in effect all the terms and condi-
tions of the 1999–2002 collective-bargaining agreement,
without the Union’s consent, by not paying the Chris t-
RICHARDS & CONOVER STEEL CO. 5
mas bonuses set forth in the agreement to unit employ-
ees, thereby abrogating material portions of article XI of
the agreement.
(j) Failing to provide the Union copies of all docu-
ments regarding the purchase/sales agreement of the roll-
ing division, along with any separate conditions and/or
understandings, written or oral, reached between the
seller and the buyer, and a copy of any and all personal
notes, either printed or handwritten, made or taken by or
on behalf of Respondent in connection with the sale of
the rolling division.
(k) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exe rcise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
Chester Williams full reinstatement to his former job or,
if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent
position, without prejudice to his seniority or any other
rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
(b) Make Chester Williams whole for any loss of earn-
ings and other benefits suffered as a result of the dis-
crimination against him, less interim earnings, plus inter-
est, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the
decision.
(c) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from its files any reference to the unlawful layoff of
Chester Williams, and within 3 days thereafter notify
him in writing that this has been done and that the layoff
will not be used against him in any way.
(d) On request, bargain with the Union concerning the
effects on the unit employees of the sale of the Respon-
dent’s rolling division and its steel warehouse.
(e) Pay limited backpay to the unit employees in the
manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision.
(f) Continue in effect all the terms and conditions of
the 1999–2002 collective-bargaining agreement with
respect to the selection of the following senior employees
for layoff from the rolling division: Richard Calvert,
Leon Johnson, Raymond Mooney, James Parker, and
James Patrick, and permit these employees to bump less
senior employees in the warehouse, pursuant to art icle VI
of the agreement.
(g) Continue in effect all the terms and conditions of
the 1999–2002 agreement with respect to the selection of
the following senior employees for layoff from the steel
warehouse: James Bryg, George Delarber, Hubert Miles,
Marvin Rowlett, Paul Sneed, and Chester Williams, and
permit these employees to bump less senior employees in
the warehouse, pursuant to article VI of the agreement.
(h) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, offer
Richard Calvert, Leon Johnson, Raymond Mooney,
James Parker, James Patrick, James Bryg, George Delar-
ber, Hubert Miles, Marvin Rowlett, and Paul Sneed full
reinstatement to their former jobs or, if those jobs no
longer exist, to substantially equivalent positions, with-
out prejudice to their seniority or any other rights or
privileges previously enjoyed.
(i) Make Richard Calvert, Leon Johnson, Raymond
Mooney, James Parker, James Patrick, James Bryg,
George Delarber, Hubert Miles, Marvin Rowlett, and
Paul Sneed whole for any loss of earnings and other
benefits suffered as a result of the discrimination against
them, less interim earnings, plus interest, in the manner
set forth in the remedy section of the decision.
(j) Within 14 days from the date of this Order, remove
from its files any reference to the unlawful layoffs, and
within 3 days thereafter notify the employees in writing
that this has been done and that the layoffs will not be
used against them in any way.
(k) Continue in effect all the terms and conditions of
the 1999–2002 collective-bargaining agreement by: (1)
permitting the Union to submit to arbitration grievances
concerning the Respondent’s actions regarding the lay-
offs of employees Richard Calvert, Leon Johnson, Ray-
mond Mooney, James Parker, James Patrick, James
Bryg, George Delarber, Hubert Miles, Marvin Rowlett,
Paul Sneed, and Chester Williams and its refusal to let
these employees bump less senior employees in the
warehouse; (2) paying vacation pay and severance pay
to unit employees; (3) granting the required wage in-
creases to unit employees; and (4) paying the required
Christmas bonuses to unit employees.
(l) Furnish to the Union in a timely manner the infor-
mation requested by the Union on November 10, 1999.
(m) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, make
available to the Board or its agents for examination and
copying, all payroll records, social security payment re-
cords, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all
other records necessary to analyze the amount of back-
pay due under the terms of this Order.
(n) Within 14 days after service by the Region, dupli-
cate and mail, at its own expense, and after being signed
by the Respondent’s authorized representative, signed
and dated copies of the attached notice marked “Appen-
dix”3 to the Union and to all current and former unit em-
ployees.
(o) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region at-
testing to the steps that the Respondent has taken to
comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. August 10, 2000

John C. Truesdale, Chairman

3 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.”
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 6

Peter J. Hurtgen, Member

J. Robert Brame III, Member

(SEAL) 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 vio-
lated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to
post and abide by this notice.
WE WILL NOT lay off our employees because they en-
gage in union and protected concerted activity.
WE WILL NOT fail to bargain collectively with the Un-
ion about the effects on our unit employees of the sale of
our rolling division and our steel warehouse.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to give timely notice to
the Union about the sale of our business and the layoff of
unit employees.
WE WILL NOT fail to continue in effect all the terms and
conditions of the 1999–2002 collective-bargaining
agreement by selecting the following senior employees
for layoff: Richard Calvert, Leon Johnson, Raymond
Mooney, James Parker, James Patrick, James Bryg,
George Delarber, Hubert Miles, Marvin Rowlett, Paul
Sneed, and Chester Williams; refusing to permit these
employees to bump less senior employees in the ware-
house, and thereby abrogating material portions of article
VI of the agreement, and refusing to permit the Union to
submit to arbitration grievances concerning our actions
regarding these layoffs thereby abrogating material por-
tions of article XIII of the agreement.
WE WILL NOT fail to continue in effect all the terms and
conditions of the 1999–2002 collective-bargaining
agreement by refusing pay vacation pay and severance
pay thereby abrogating material portions of articles XI
and XVII of the agreement, refusing to grant wage in-
creases thereby abrogating material portions of article IX
of the agreement, and not paying the Christmas bonuses
thereby abrogating material portions of article XI of the
agreement.
WE WILL NOT fail to provide the Union necessary and
relevant information, on request.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
order, offer Chester Williams full reinstatement to his
former job or, if that job no longer exists, to a substan-
tially equivalent position, without prejudice to his senior-
ity or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Chester Williams whole for any loss of
earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of the
discrimination against him, less interim earnings, plus
interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, remove from our files any reference to the unlaw-
ful layoff of Chester Williams, and within 3 days thereaf-
ter notify him in writing that this has been done and that
the layoff will not be used against him in any way.
WE WILL, on request, bargain with the Union concern-
ing the effects on the unit employees of the sale of our
rolling division on or about August 17, 1999, the sale or
closure of our steel warehouse on or about December 7,
1999, and the lay-off of certain unit employees.
WE WILL pay limited backpay to the unit employees in
connection with our failure to bargain with the Union
over the sale of our business.
WE WILL continue in effect all the terms and conditions
of the 1999–2002 collective-bargaining agreement with
respect to the selection of the following senior employees
for layoff: Richard Calvert, Leon Johnson, Raymond
Mooney, James Parker, James Patrick, James Bryg,
George Delarber, Hubert Miles, Marvin Rowlett, Paul
Sneed, and Chester Williams; and permit these employ-
ees to bump less senior employees in the warehouse,
pursuant to article VI of the agreement.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, offer Richard Calvert, Leon Johnson, Raymond
Mooney, James Parker, James Patrick, James Bryg,
George Delarber, Hubert Miles, Marvin Rowlett, and
Paul Sneed full reinstatement to their former jobs or, if
those jobs no longer exist, to substantially equivalent
positions, without prejudice to their seniority or any
other rights or privileges previously enjoyed.
WE WILL make Richard Calvert, Leon Johnson, Ray-
mond Mooney, James Parker, James Patrick, James
Bryg, George Delarber, Hubert Miles, Marvin Rowlett,
and Paul Sneed whole for any loss of earnings and other
benefits suffered as a result of their unlawful lay-offs,
less interim earnings, plus interest.
WE WILL, within 14 days from the date of the Board’s
Order, remove from our files any reference to the unlaw-
ful layoffs, and within 3 days thereafter, notify these em-
ployees in writing that this has been done and that the
layoffs will not be used against them in any way.
WE WILL continue in effect all the terms and conditions
of the 1999–2002 collective-bargaining agreement by
permitting the Union to submit to arbitration grievances
concerning the Respondent’s actions regarding the lay-
offs, pursuant to article XIII of the agreement.
WE WILL continue in effect all the terms and conditions
of the 1999–2002 collective-bargaining agreement by
granting vacation pay and severance pay to unit employ-
ees, pursuant to articles XI and XVII of the agreement,
RICHARDS & CONOVER STEEL CO. 7
granting the required wage increases to unit employees,
pursuant to article IX of the agreement, and paying re-
quired Christmas bonuses to unit employees pursuant to
article XI of the agreement.
WE WILL furnish to the Union in a timely manner the
information requested by the Union on November 10,
1999.
RICHARDS AND CONOVER STEEL COMPANY