Teledyne, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 27, 1969

179 N.L.R.B. 345 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

TABER INSTRUMENTS, DIV. OF TELEDYNE, INC.
Taber Instruments , Division of Teledyne, Inc. and
International Union of Electrical , Radio and
Machine Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 3-CA-3740
October 27, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND ZAGORIA
On July 8, 1969, Trial Examiner Charles W
Schneider issued his Decision in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding that the 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 and the Charging Party
filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision,
together with supporting briefs.
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 in this proceeding and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and
the entire record in this proceeding, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the
recommended Order of the Trial Examiner, and
orders that the Respondent, Taber Instruments,
Division of Teledyne, Inc., North Tonawanda, New
York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall take the action set forth in the Trial
Examiner's recommended Order.
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Representation Proceeding'
'Administrative or official notice is taken of the record in the
representation proceeding, Case 3-RC-4118, as the term "record" is
defined in Sec 102 68 and 102 69(f) of the Board's rules (Rules and
Regulations and Statements of Procedure, National Labor Relations
Board, Series 8, as amended) See LTV Electrosystems, inc , 166 NLRB
No 81, enfd 388 F 2d 683 (C A 4), Golden Age Beverage Co , 167
NLRB No 24, Intertype Co v Penello, 269 F Supp 573 (D C Va ),
345
CHARLES W SCHNEIDER, Trial Examiner Upon a
petition for an election filed on March 15, 1967, by the
International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, an election
pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent
election was conducted on May 4, 1967, under the
supervision of the Regional Director of the National
Labor Relations Board for Region 3, at the North
Tonawanda, New York, plant of Taber Instruments,
Division of Teledyne, Inc., herein called the Respondent.
In an appropriate unit, 50 votes were cast against the
Union, 36 votes were cast for the Union, and 2 ballots
were challenged.
Pursuant to timely objections to conduct of the
employer affecting the results of the election filed by
Respondent on May 8, 1967, an investigation was
conducted under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director and an order was issued directing a
hearing on said objections On January 31, 1968, the
Regional Director issued an order consolidating Case
3-RC-4118 with unfair labor practice Case 3-CA-3305 for
the purposes of a hearing before a duly designated Trial
Examiner. A hearing on the consolidated cases was held
on March 6, 1968, and on June 5, 1968, Trial Examiner
Thomas Maher issued his decision recommending to the
Board that the election held in Case 3-RC-4118 be set
aside and that said case be remanded to the Regional
Director to conduct a new election The Respondent filed
exceptions to this Trial Examiner's Decision on June 26,
1968.
On August 9, 1968, the Board issued a Decision and
Order in Taber Instruments, Division of Teledyne, Inc Z
adopting the Trial Examiner's Decision and severing
Cases 3-CA-3305 and 3-RC-4118 and remanding Case
3-RC-4118 to the Regional Director for the purpose of
conducting a second election
Pursuant to the Board's Decision and Order, on
September 13, 1968, the Regional Director for Region 3
conducted a second election. Out of approximately 99
eligible voters, 58 cast ballots for the Union, 32 against
and 6 ballots were challenged.
The Respondent timely filed objections to conduct of
election and to conduct affecting results of election on
September 19, 1968, and an investigation was conducted
by the Regional Director in accordance with Section
102 69 of the Board's Rules and Regulations. As a result
of such investigation, a Report on Objections was issued
by the Regional Director on December 6, 1968, in which
he found that the Respondent's objections raised no
substantial or material issues affecting the results of the
election, recommended that the objections be overruled,
and that a Certification of Representative issue On
December 30, 1968, Respondent filed with the Board in
Washington, D.C , exceptions to the Regional Director's
report on objections together with a supporting brief On
February 27, 1969, the Board issued a Decision and
Certification of Representative in which after
consideration of the entire record in the case, it adopted
the Regional Director's findings and recommendations
and certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the employees in the designated unit.
Intertype Co v N L R B. 401 F 2d 41 (C A 4), Follett Corp, et al. 164
NLRB No 47, enfd 397 F 2d 91 (C A 7), Sec 9(d) of the Act
'172 NLRB No 169
179 NLRB No. 59
346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Unfair Labor Practice Case
On March 21, 1969, the Union filed an unfair labor
practice charge in which it alleged that since on or about
Mar,:h 11, 1969, the Respondent refused and continues to
refuse to bargain with the Union. On April 8, 1969, the
General Counsel, by the Regional Director, issued a
complaint and notice or hearing alleging that commencing
on or about March 11, 1969, Respondent had committed
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and
(5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act by refusing to
bargain with the Union upon request' Thereafter,
Respondent filed an Answer to the complaint admitting
certain allegations of the complaint and denying others In
its Answer Respondent, inter alia, admitted the following
allegations of the complaint (I) the filing and service of
the charge, (2) the jurisdictional allegations, (3) the
allegation that Leland E Coulter was Respondent's
general manager, and (4) the appropriateness of the unit
Respondent denied (1) that a majority of the employees in
the unit had selected the Union as their representative and
that the Board had certified the Union, (2) that the Union
is the exclusive representative for the purposes of
collective bargaining, (3) that the Union has requested the
Respondent to bargain collectively, and (4) that
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act
The answer additionally set forth several affirmative
defenses to the complaint Respondent contends that the
first election was properly conducted and should not have
been set aside, and that therefore the second election was
invalidly conducted and thus a nullity. Secondly,
Respondent asserts that if it was proper to conduct the
second election, that election should have been set aside
for the reasons appearing in Respondent's objections to
that election Also, the answer urges that the Board
deprived the Respondent of due process of law by denying
the Respondent's exceptions to the Regional Director's
report on objections without ordering an evidentiary
hearing and rendering "an independent opinion of the
case "
On May I, 1969, counsel for the General Counsel filed
a motion for summary judgment and Issuance of Trial
Examiner's Decision, together with a supporting
argument. In his argument, counsel for General Counsel
asserts that Respondent's answer merely raises issues
which had previously been decided by the Board in the
representation proceeding Therefore, General Counsel
urges that the official record in the representation case
together with Respondent's admissions contained in its
answer establish the violations alleged in the complaint as
a matter of law, making a hearing unnecessary.
On May 2, 1969, I issued an Order to Show Cause on
General Counsel's motion for summary judgment and
issuance of Trial Examiner's Decision in which I directed
the parties to show cause before me, if cause they had, on
or before May 19, 1969, subsequently extended to May
27, 1969, as to whether or not the General Counsel's
motion should be granted
On May 26, 1969, Respondent filed a statement in
opposition to General Counsel's motion for summary
judgment A response in the nature of a brief supporting
the General Counsel's motion and requesting certain
'On April 21, 1969, counsel for the Regional Director amended the
complaint and notice of hearing to allege that Respondent is a Delaware
corporation rather than a New York corporation as originally alleged in
the complaint
remedial relief was filed by the Union on the same date
RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Respondent's basic contentions are that it is entitled to
a hearing and that there are unresolved issues of fact and
credibility raised by Respondent's objections to the rerun
election which were not resolved in the Regional
Director's Report on Objections and which therefore
require a hearing
The Respondent asserts that Section 10(b) of the Act,
Section 5 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U S C
554), and Section 101 10 of the Board's Rules and
Regulations and Statements of Procedure, require a
hearing in unfair labor practice cases as a matter of law.
There is, however, no absolute right to a hearing where
there are no litigable issues. Summary judgment is
appropriate in such instances See M N Landau Stores,
Inc d/bla Clark's Discount Department Store, 175
NLRB No 53
In the disposition of objections to an election, a hearing
is not required unless substantial and material issues are
raised by the objections As the Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit has said, "If there is nothing to hear, then a
hearing is a senseless and useless formality " Air Control
Window Products, Inc , 355 F 2d 245, 249 (C A 5) See
also Bata Shoe Co , 377 F 2d 821, 826 (C A 4) "
there is no requirement, constitutional or otherwise, that
there be a hearing in the absence of substantial and
material issues crucial to determination of whether
National Labor Relations Board election results are to be
accepted for purposes of certification." Other courts of
appeals are in accord. See, e g , N L R B v Certified
Testing Laboratories, Inc , 387 F 2d 285 (C A 3),
N L R B v Tennessee Packers, Inc , 379 F.2d 172 (C A
6), cert. denied 389 U S 958; N L R B v National
Survey Service, inc , 361 F 2d 199, 208 , (C A 7),
N L R B v Hollywood Brands, Inc, 398 F 2d 294 (C A
7) The cases cited by Respondent are not contrary
authority Those cases hold that a hearing is required
where there are substantial and material issues They are
not to be construed as requiring a hearing where there is
no such issue In any event, in its Decision and
Certification of Representative in Case 3-RC-4118, after
consideration of the entire record, the Board adopted (and
that action is binding on the Trial Examiner at this stage
of the proceeding) the Regional Director's findings that
the Respondent's objections raised no substantial or
material issues affecting the results of the election
The question of the validity of the election and the
certification was thus decided by the Board in the
representation case It is established Board policy, in the
absence of newly discovered or previously unavailable
evidence or special circumstances not to permit litigation
before a Trial Examiner in an unfair labor practice case
of issues which were or could have been litigated in a
prior related representation proceeding ° In the
representation proceeding the Respondent presented to the
Board, or had opportunity to present, all its present
contentions concerning the validity of the election and the
certification. The Respondent is thus seeking to relitigate
the Board determination Respondent does not allege that
it possesses new evidence or that special circumstances
exist.
'Howard Johnson Company, 164 NLRB No 121, Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company, 163 NLRB No 71 See Pittsburgh Plate Glass
Company v N L R B, 313 U S 146, 162, Rules and Regulations and
TABER INSTRUMENTS, DIV. OF TELEDYNE, INC.
Respondent asserts in its answer that it was deprived of
due process of law by the Board's action in denying
Respondent's exceptions to the Regional Director's report
on objection "without rendering an independent opinion of
the case "
That contention is not supported The case cited by the
Respondent as authority for this proposition (Pepsicola
Bottling Co v N L.R.B, 409 F.2d 676 (C A 2)), is
inapplicable In the Pepsicola case the Regional Director,
pursuant to authority authorized in the statute (Sec 3(b))
and delegated in the Board's Rules (Sec. 102.67(b)) issued
a final decision. Under Board practice such decision is not
subject to plenary review by the Board, but only to
discretionary review through permission granted by the
Board upon certiorari principles (Rules 102.67(b)-(f)
inclusive) The employer in Pepsicola sought such review,
which the Board denied. The court held that the Board
was required to review the record before it could issue an
effective certification. In the present case, however, the
decision was made by the Board and the record was
reviewed The Stipulation for Certification Upon Consent
Election (authorized under Section 102 62(b) of the
Board's Rules) pursuant to which the election here was
held, provides that all post-election procedure "shall be in
conformity with the Board's Rules and Regulations."
Section 102.69(c) of the Rules provides that objections to
elections in such cases shall be decided by the Board. The
Board made such a decision, issued a formal Decision and
Certification of Representative which recites that the
Board considered the entire record in the case. The Board
then adopted the Regional Director's findings and
recommendations, overruled the objections and certified
the Union The Board thus reviewed the matter and
"rendered an independent opinion in the case." The
Pepsicola decision is therefore inapplicable See also M
N Landau Stores, Inc, dlbla Clark's Discount
Department Store, 175 NLRB No. 53, Mar Salle, Inc,
d/b/a Marsalle Convalescent Home, 173 NLRB No. 69.
As is hereinafter found, the Respondent refused to
bargain collectively with the Union upon request. There
thus being no unresolved issues requiring an evidential
hearing, or newly discovered or previously unavailable
evidence or special circumstances, the certification of the
Board constitutes the law of the case at this stage of the
proceeding Accordingly, the motion for summary
judgment is hereby granted
On the basis of the record before me I make the
following further-
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Delaware corporation with its principal
office and sole plant located in North Tonawanda, New
York During the past calendar year, a representative
period, in the course and conduct of its business
operations, Respondent manufactured, sold, and
distributed products valued in excess of $50,000, of which
products valued over $50,000 were shipped from said plant
directly to states of the United States outside the State of
New York. The Respondent is an employer engaged in
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
Statements of Procedure , National Labor Relations Board, Series 8, as
amended, Sec 102 67(f) and 102 69(c)
11. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
347
International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine
Workers, AFL-CIO, is now and has been at all times
material herein a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
In accordance with the stipulation for certification upon
consent election, it is found that the following employees
of the Respondent constitute a unit appropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act
All production and maintenance employees, technical
employees, draftsmen, and plant clerical employees at
the Employer's North Tonawanda, New York plant,
excluding all salesmen, office clerical employees,
professional employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act
As set forth above, on September 13, 1968, a majority
of Respondent's employees in the appropriate unit selected
the Union as their collective-bargaining representative in a
rerun election by _]secret ballot under the
supervision of the Regional Director for Region 3 On
February 27, 1969, the Board duly certified the Union as
such representative
It is accordingly found that at all times since February
27, 1969, and continuing to date, the Union has been the
representative for the purposes of collective bargaining of
the employees in the said unit , and by virtue of Section
9(a) of the Act, has been, and is now, the exclusive
representative of all the employees in said unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and
conditions of employment.
THE REFUSAL TO BARGAIN
The complaint alleges that commencing on or about
March 6, 1969, and continuing to date, the Union
requested the Respondent to bargain collectively, and that
commencing on or about March 11, 1969, and at all times
thereafter, Respondent refused to bargain with the Union.
In its answer Respondent denies both allegations
Counsel for General Counsel attached to his Motion for
Summary Judgment and Issuance of Trial Examiner's
Decision a copy of a telegram dated March 6, 1969, a
letter of the same date, and a further letter dated March
18, 1969, from Harry Shaw, International representative
of the Union to Leland E. Coulter, general manager of
Respondent. (Exhs. 7, 8, 9). All 3 documents request that
a representative of Respondent meet with the Union for
purposes of collective bargaining. Also attached to the
Motion for Summary Judgment as exhibits 10 and 11 are
2 letters from L. E. Coulter to Shaw, dated March 11,
1969, and March 25, 1969, in response to Shaw's
communications of March 6 and 18. The March 11 letter
declines the request to bargain, the effect of the March 25
letter is to reiterate the refusal.
The Order To Show Cause issued on the motion for
summary judgment directed the Respondent, if it filed a
response, to state specifically whether it denied the
authenticity of any of the exhibits attached to the motion
The Respondent has not responded to that direction. It is
therefore found that the exhibits establish that the Union
requested the Respondent to bargain on March 6 and 18,
1969, and that the Respondent on March 11 and 25, 1969,
348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
refused to bargain. By such action the Respondent has
refused to bargain collectively in violation of Section
8(a)(5) of the Act and has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the
Act. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce
within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
THE REMEDY
In its response to the show cause order, the Union
requests specific affirmative relief For the reasons set
forth below, these requests are denied.
The Union first requests that the Respondent be
ordered to furnish the Union on demand a list of the
names and addresses of all employees within the unit with
job classifications, rates of pay, and fringe benefits and to
maintain such list for 3 years The Union, of course, is
entitled to essential information pertaining to the
bargaining unit prior to and during collective bargaining
negotiations,' but there is insufficient evidence in the
record of this case to suggest that a request for such
information may be denied once the certification is
assented to or judicially confirmed
Although the Respondent did not comply with a request
in the Union's March 18, 1969, letter for production of
similar information, this refusal was based on
Respondent's assertion that the certification was invalid.
In the context of the present facts and background I do
not assume that the Respondent will similarly refuse to
supply such information after the issue of the validity of
the certification is finally settled. In the cases cited by the
Union,' circumstances existed which warranted the
conclusion that a specific order would be required to
insure the timely production of information concerning the
employees in the unit Absent a showing of similar
circumstances in this case, such an order is deemed
inappropriate. In any event, the order recommended
herein is broad enough to require the furnishing of
information essential to negotiating and to discharge of
the Union's duties as representative
The Union's request for an order providing reasonable
access to bulletin boards for three years is similarly
deemed unwarranted in these circumstances Remedial
action of similar nature is sometimes appropriate in
instances of aggravated unfair labor practices,' but absent
evidence that the Union has experienced any problem of
communication or personal access to the Respondent's
employees, the Union's request does not appear to be
related to the unfair labor practice found, or to be an
appropriate remedy for it. William L Bonnell Co , 170
NLRB No. 14; Playboy of Miami, 160 NLRB 1617.
The Union also requests that the Respondent be
ordered to make the employees whole for losses suffered
'See, e g , Cowles Communications , Inc. 172 NLRB No 204, Standard
Oil Company of California. Western Operations . Inc, 166 NLRB No 45
enfd 399 F 2d 639 (C A 9), Sylvania Electric Products , Inc, 154 NLRB
1756, enfd 358 F 2d 591 (C A 1), Whitin Machine Works , 108 NLRB
1537, enfd 127 F 2d 593 (C A 4), cert denied 349 U S 905
'Rockwell Standard Corp, 166 NLRB No 23, Shell Oil Co (Roxana,
Ill ), 167 NLRB No 32, N L R B v Boston Herald- Traveler Corporation,
210 F 2d 134 (C A 1), Vanette Hosiery Mills, 80 NLRB 1116, enfd 179
F 2d 504 (C A 5), J P Stevens Co, Inc, 163 NLRB No 24, Marlene
Industries Corporation , 166 NLRB No 58
'See e g , Marlene Industries , supra,. Great Lakes Screw Corp , 164
NLRB No 20, J P Stevens and Co . Inc, 163 NLRB No 24, enfd in
part 388 F 2d 896 (C A 4), Scott's Inc , 159 NLRB 1795, enfd in part
383 F 2d 230 (C A D C ), H W Elson Bottling Co, 155 NLRB 714, enfd
in part 379 F 2d 223 (C A 6)
because of the company's refusal to bargain I find
insufficient justification for such an order. Although this
problem is currently under consideration by the Board in
several pending cases,' in a number of similar cases the
Board has denied compensatory relief of such character
Saks and Company, 160 NLRB 682, United Insurance
Co, 162 NLRB 439, Monroe Auto Equipment Co.,
Hartwell Division, 164 NLRB No. 144; Louisburg
Sportswear Co, 173 NLRB No. 101; Presto
Manufacturing Co, 172 NLRB No. 30, enfd 413 F.2d
1085 (C.A.D C.); Marriott In-Flight Services, 171 NLRB
No. 102; A H. Belo Corporation, 170 NLRB No 175,
enfd. in part 411 F 2d 959 (C.A. 5), Preston Products
Company, Inc , 158 NLRB 322, enfd in part, remanded
in part 392 F.2d 801 (C.A D C ), cert denied 392 U S.
906. In the instant case no evidential record was made or
offered to support the propriety of the requested
reimbursement order, such as facts or a statistical basis
indicating reasonable possibility that the employees may
have suffered financial or other losses as a consequence of
the refusal to bargain, the actual existence and amount of
which could then be determined in a backpay proceeding.
Such a record is a prerequisite to a reimbursement order
Otherwise the matter is so speculative as not to warrant
an order. Accordingly the compensatory relief requested is
denied.
The Union also requests that all provisions of any
contract negotiated between it and the company be made
retroactive to the date of certification. That request is also
denied. The Union has cited no case, and I am aware of
none, in which the Board has granted such retroactive
relief. In similar circumstances the Board recently
declined to deviate from its existing policy of denying
retroactive remedial orders in cases involving violations of
Section 8(a)(5) (Georgia Highway Express, Inc , 171
NLRB No 111; Saks and Company, 160 NLRB 682,
enfd. 385 F.2d 301 (C.A.D C )), and there is insufficient
evidence in this record to warrant departure from the
existing policy.
The Union also requests a precontractual procedure for
the settling of grievances terminating in compulsory and
binding arbitration. A grievance and arbitration procedure
of such character is normally a matter for collective
bargaining and not imposed appropriately as a remedy for
unfair labor practices in circumstances, such as
presumably these are, where the unfair labor practice is
based on good faith doubt as to the validity of the
certification. The request is therefore denied.
For purposes of determining the effective period of
duration of the certification, the initial year of
certification shall be deemed to begin on the date the
Respondent commences to bargain in good faith with the
Union as the recognized bargaining representative in the
appropriate unit.'
Upon the foregoing findings and conclusions and the
entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act, I recommend that the Board issue the following-
'Ex-Cell-0 Corp, Case 25-CA-2377 , TXD-80-67 , Zinke's Foods, Case
30-CA-372, TXD-662-66 , Herman Wilson Lumber Company, Case
26-CA-2536, TXD-757-66
'The purpose of this provision is to insure that the employees in the
appropriate unit will be accorded the statutorily prescribed services of the
collective-bargaining agent for the period provided by law See Mar-Jac
Poultry Company , Inc, 136 NLRB 785, Commerce Company dlbla
Lamar Hotel , 140 NLRB 226, 229, enfd 328 F 2d 600 (C A 5), Burnett
Construction Company, 149 NLRB 1419, 1421 , enfd 350 F 2d 57 (C A
10)
TABER INSTRUMENTS, DIV OF TELEDYNE, INC.
ORDER
Taber Instruments , Division of Teledyne, Inc, its
officers , agents, successors , and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International
Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the following
appropriate unit'
All production and maintenance employees, technical
employees , draftsmen , and plant clerical employees at
the Employer ' s North Tonawanda , New York plant,
excluding all salesmen , office clerical employees,
professional employees , guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act
(b) Interfering with the efforts of said Union to
negotiate for or represent employees in said appropriate
unit as the exclusive collective - bargaining representative
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with International
Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of the
employees in the appropriate unit with respects to rates of
pay, wages , hours of work , and other terms and
conditions of employment, and embody in a signed
agreement any understanding reached
(b) Post at its North Tonawanda , New York, plant,
copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix "I"
Copies of said notice, on forms to be provided by the
Regional Director of Region 3, after being duly signed by
an authorized representative of the Respondent , shall be
posted by the Respondent 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 posted
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to
insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or
covered by any other material
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 3, in
writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this
Recommended Order, what steps it has taken to comply
herewith "
"In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
the words "a Decision and Order" shall be substituted for the words, "the
Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner " in the notice In the further
event that the Board 's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words, "a Decree of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a
Decision and Order "
In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board,
this provision shall be modified to read "Notify the Regional Director of
Region 3, in writing , within 10 days from the date of this Order, what
steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith "
349
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of The National Labor Relations Board
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with
International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining
representative of all our following employees
All production and maintenance employees, technical
employees, draftsmen, and plant clerical employees at
our North Tonawanda, New York, plant, excluding
all salesmen, office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
WE WILL NOT interfere with the efforts of the Union
to negotiate for or represent the employees in the
appropriate unit as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative
WE WILL bargain collectively with the Union as
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in
the appropriate unit, and if an understanding is reached
we will sign a contract with the Union
Dated By
TABER INSTRUMENTS,
DIVISION OF TELEDYNE,
INC
(Employer)
(Representative ) (Title)
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 may be directed to
the Board's Regional Office, Fourth Floor, The 120
Building, 120 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York
14202, Telephone 716-842-3100